Posts Tagged ‘Montana’

« Older Entries

Update on mandatory judicial retirement legislation: bills in 16 states, but so far no enactments; Hawaii appears to be closest but has choppy history on the subject

March 19th, 2013

I’ve mentioned in the past the sheer volume of bills, particularly in the last 3 years, to increase or eliminate the mandatory retirement age for judges. So far while there has been a great deal of activity no state has been able to get an increase or elimination either onto the governor’s desk or before the voters.

Hawaii in particular looks to be the most likely to get an increase or elimination, but it not at all clear how the state legislature will fare and how the voters will react. Hawaii has a particular history with the subject of mandatory judicial retirement, one that does not suggest adoption is certain.

2005-2006 session: Eliminate it

In 2005, Hawaii had the first Republican governor since statehood with the power to appoint judges via merit selection, a legislature made up of a supermajority of Democrats (41 to 10 in the House, 20 to 5 in the Senate), and several members of the state’s courts up against the mandatory retirement age of 70. The state’s senate proposed a constitutional amendment (SB 995) eliminating the mandatory retirement age of 70. The vote went along party lines, the move was viewed as partisan in general, and it which went down to a nearly 2-1 defeat in the November 2006 elections.

2007-2010: Raise it

After the defeat in 2006 and taking the 2007 session off, the legislature went back to work on the subject. HB 2344 of 2008 would have raised the age from 70 to 72, while SB 3202 of the same year would have raised it from 70 to 80, but only for judges appointed after November 4, 2008 when the item would have been on the ballot. The 70-to-72 version went nowhere, the 70-to-80 version was approved in the House and Senate, but using slightly different language that could not be reconciled in conference committee in time.

A 2009/2010 version (HB 621) to raise the age from 70 to the end of the term in which a judge turned 70 was never even brought up for a committee hearing.

2011-2012: Increase it and/or work around it

The 2011/2012 session saw attempts to try and work around the mandatory retirement age of 70. SB 650 authorized the chief justice of the supreme court to appoint judges forced into retirement as “emeritus judges” to serve as per diem judges or judicial mentors in courts no higher than the court level they reached prior to retirement and for terms not to exceed three months. An amended version, removing any reference to “judicial mentors” was approved by the House and Senate unanimously, but there was a catch. Because it was a constitutional amendment, the legislature was required under the constitution to give the governor 10 days written notice before passage. They failed to do so and had to swiftly repass the bill to get it onto the 2012 ballot. Despite no apparent opposition, the provision failed when over 10% of voters simply declined to vote on the item. Final tally: 49.6% Yes, 39.9% No, 10.4% not voting.

In the meantime the effort to raise the age was reintroduced and redebated (SB 2206 of 2012) again with an eye towards raising it from 70 to 80. It was approved unanimously in the Senate and the House Judiciary Committee in March 2012, but the focus for the remaining months of the legislature was on SB 650, the work around, rather than the increase.

2013-2014: Increase it and/or work around it (again)

Despite the loss in 2012, the legislature appears inclined to try and repropose the judge emeritus concept again to voters. HB 275 and SB 346 effectively cut and paste the language that was on the November 2012 ballot. The difference here would be that House version applies to any retired judge or justice, trial or appellate, regardless of whether they are forced into retirement at age 70 or not; the Senate version mentions only “judges” and otherwise reproduces the language of the 2012 bill (i.e. only those forced to retire at age 70):

SB 650 of 2012: The chief justice may appoint judges who have retired upon attaining the age of seventy years as emeritus judges, permitting the appointed judges to serve as temporary judges in courts no higher than the court level they reached prior to retirement and for terms not to exceed three months per each appointment.

HB 275 of 2013 (as approved by House): The chief justice may appoint judges and justices who have retired as emeritus judges, permitting the appointed judges and justices to serve as temporary judges in courts no higher than the court level they reached prior to retirement and for terms not to exceed three months per appointment.

SB 346 of 2013: The chief justice may appoint judges who have retired upon attaining the age of seventy years as emeritus judges, permitting the appointed judges to serve as temporary judges in courts no higher than the court level they reached prior to retirement and for terms not to exceed three months per each appointment.

 HB 275 as amended was approved unanimously by the full House February 28.

HB 792, SB 886 and SB 1022 all increase the mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 80. Of the three, it is SB 886 which has had the greatest success; it was approved unanimously by the Senate February 15 and unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee March 7. The next hurdle is the House Finance Committee. Despite the swift passage so far, it could be delayed up to a year and carried over until the 2014 session (as occurred with SB 650, mentioned above).

The latest status report on the bills in Hawaii and the other 16 states considering the issue this session are below the fold.

» Read more: Update on mandatory judicial retirement legislation: bills in 16 states, but so far no enactments; Hawaii appears to be closest but has choppy history on the subject

1 comment »

Posted in Qualification & Terms

Tags:

As more states try to require their judges be lawyers, Tennessee may move in opposite direction

February 19th, 2013

In the last several years, various states have moved away from the practice of allowing judges to be non-attorneys. Georgia, for example, in 2011 required all newly appointed or elected Municipal Court judges to be attorneys. In 2011 and 2012 Maryland’s voters approved constitutional amendments requiring at least some of their Orphan’s Courts have attorney-judges.

Tennessee’s HB 1320 and SB 1230 move in precisely in the opposite direction.

Existing laws require the judges of all the state’s courts be attorneys (judges serving prior to 1990 in some courts without a law license can continue to serve). HB 1320 / SB 1230 would provide that effective September 2013 the requirements would be repealed.

At the same time at least 4 states are considering requiring their judges be lawyers:

Indiana SB 295: City and Town Courts

Mississippi HB 633: Municipal Court

Montana HB 467: Justice of the Peace Courts that are courts of record

New Mexico HB 119: Metropolitan Courts

New Mexico SB 237: Probate Courts in counties with a population over 500,000

No comments »

Posted in Qualification & Terms

Tags:

Montana: county needs only provide the absolute “minimally required” resources for the courts

February 18th, 2013

As in many states, court operations are often funded and staffed by local government, particularly in limited jurisdiction courts. Montana’s Justice Courts, and particularly the staffing thereof, appear to be in contention under SB332.

Existing law specifies the board of county commissioners are to provide the justice court(s) in the county an “office, courtroom, and clerical assistance necessary to enable the justice of the peace and the clerk of justice’s court, if any, to conduct business in dignified surroundings” as well as “ the books, records, forms, papers, stationery, postage, office equipment, and supplies necessary in the proper keeping of the records and files of the court and the transaction of the business” (emphasis added)

SB 322 takes the word “necessary” and defines it to mean “that which is minimally required, but not more.” It further adds “clarification” to the existing law, effectively denying any power of the judge/court to control staff. Moreover, the bill specifies the board of county commissioners alone is to determine current and future caseload needs and the needed staffing.

SB 322 is up for a hearing before the Senate Local Government Committee on February 22.

No comments »

Posted in Rule Making Authority, Salary & Budget

Tags:

Over a dozen efforts to alter number of state supreme court justices, almost all related to “packing” the courts, in last several years

February 5th, 2013

With the activity in NC today, and similar efforts underway in SC, I thought I’d review the efforts over the last several years to alter the structure of state supreme courts, as well as how they fared.

2007/2008

Florida: a state senator introduced SB 408 in 2007 to expand the state’s Supreme Court from 7 to 15 members. The bill’s text explicitly stated the reason for the increase was to overturn the Court’s decision in 2006 that found unconstitutional the state’s use of public money for vouchers for use in Catholic schools. When the bill became public, the senator quickly withdrew it, telling the Tallahassee Democrat “Basically, a law student came up with the idea and asked me to have it drafted so he could see how it would look, but it was never supposed to be introduced.” The senator declined to identify the law student.

Georgia: media reported legislation was considered to increase from 7 to 9 the number of seats on that state’s high court. Then-Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears urged lawmakers not to alter the court, telling them “We are doing well. We are getting it done. We have the manpower we need.” Nevertheless, SR 370 was introduced, providing that there would be a justice elected from each congressional district, effectively increasing the court from 7 to 13.

Michigan: an effort to reduce the size of the Supreme Court. The Reform Michigan Government Now proposal was ostensibly to help ease the state’s budget crises by reducing the size of the state’s legislature, Supreme Court, and Court of Appeals. However, a PowerPoint presentation left on the website of a local union explained the purpose of removing 2 of the then 7 serving Supreme Court justices was to ensure Democrat-friendly redistricting rulings after the 2010 U.S. Census (the 2 justices to be removed were Republicans). The initiative was eventually killed when the state’s Supreme Court held that the initiative failed to meet certain constitutional criteria for initiatives.

South Carolina: Amendment to the state’s constitution (SB 34) to expand their Supreme Court from 5 to 7 members elected by congressional district. Another version (SB 23) simply expanded the court from 5 to 7 without mention of congressional districts.

2009/2010

Alabama: SB 507 would have reduced their Supreme Court from 9 to 7 via attrition.

Indiana:  HJR 9 would have set the number of justices at 5 (currently can be from 5 to 9), but eliminated the state’s merit selection system and replaced it with direct elections.

Iowa: After all 7 justices ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in the state, HJR 2012 would have expanded the court to 9.

Georgia: SB 429 tied more money for the courts with an expanded Supreme Court. The bill would have added a $100 judicial operations fund fee to all civil actions with the proceeds to be deposited into the general fund of the state treasury for funding salaries of judges and the operational needs of the judicial system. The increase in funding was conditional on an increase in the Supreme Court from 7 to 9 justices and the court of appeals from 12 to 15.

Nevada: SJR 9 would have permitted, but not required, the state legislature create an intermediate appellate court consisting of 3 or more judges and sets the number at least initially at 3. If the constitutional amendment was approved and if the legislature did create an intermediate appellate court, the state’s Supreme Court would be reduced from 7 to 5 justices. The proposal was sent to the voters in 2010 and failed.

South Carolina:  2007/2008 bills to expand the state’s Supreme Court from 5 to 7 were reintroduced in 2009 as SB 63 (congressional districts) and SB 55.

2011/2012

Arizona SB 1481: expand state’s Supreme Court from 5 to 7 justices. Effort failed when the state’s chief justice personally testified the expansion was not needed, that the Supreme Court was fully functioning, and was not behind in its caseload. The main sponsor countered that “I just thought that I might give the opportunity for two additional attorneys to sit on the supreme court.”

Florida HJR 7111 (as introduced): Split the state’s 7 member supreme court into two, separate 5 member civil and criminal Supreme Courts; transfer Democratically appointed justices to criminal court.

Montana:  HB 245 would have reduced the size of the state’s supreme court from 7 to 5. The sponsor was abundantly clear of his reasoning for the reduction:

All of us want tort reform, well maybe not all of us.  I surely want it and a lot of folks I talk to want it. So how do we get tort reform? I would suggest that if we took the Supreme Court from 7 down to 5, they have a higher workload, guess who becomes our ally in tort reform? The Supreme Court.

2013/2014

North Carolina: No bill number (amendment to SB 10) would have expanded the state’s supreme court from 7 to 9 members.

South Carolina: HB 3090 would expand Supreme Court from 5 to 7 members.

No comments »

Posted in Structure Changes

Tags:

Should state supreme court justices have to serve as trial judges first? Montana considers just such a proposal.

January 11th, 2013

The practice of requiring the judge of an appellate court first be admitted to the practice of law for a set period of time is not unheard of: at least 30 states have statutory or constitutional requirements that a person practice law or at least be admitted to the bar for a certain number of years before being eligible.

A bill currently being drafted would add an additional requirement: service as a trial judge.

Montana’s current constitution requires a justice of the supreme court be admitted to the practice of law in the state for at least 5 years. D. 1699 would amend the state’s constitution to also require those seeking to be justices have “served as a District Court judge” for an unspecified amount of time.

 

If adopted, the Montana provision would be the first in the nation to directly tie service as a trial judge to service on the state’s court of last resort.

No comments »

Posted in Qualification & Terms

Tags:

Montana bill would specifically target Supreme Court salaries, end practice of linking salaries to that of justices in other states

December 27th, 2012

Current Montana law (2-16-403) provides that the salaries for the state’s supreme court are to be based on the salaries of judges in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho. The Department of Administration takes the salaries for these justices/chief justices, averages them, and raises (if needed) the Montana justice’s salaries to meet the average.

A draft bill requested by a Republican member of the Montana Senate would end the practice. Under D. 567 the salary of the seven highest paid nonjudicial Montana state employees would be used. The salaries of the seven would be averaged and used to set the salaries for the supreme court.

Interestingly, the bill as currently drafted would not end the same practice of averaging the salaries in the 4 surrounding states with respect to the District Court. 3-5-211 sets the same practice, but is not covered in D. 567.

2 comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

Merit selection: comprehensive state-by-state review of efforts to modify or end existing systems

April 10th, 2012

The debate over merit selection systems has reached a head in the last several years, with strenuous efforts at play to create merit selection systems in states which lack them coupled with vigorous efforts in other states that have merit selection to heavily modify or end their systems.

Over the next two days I’m going to look at both aspects of merit selection. Today I’ll be examining 2012 efforts to modify or end existing merit selection systems as created by constitutional provision or statute. Several states use “merit selection” entirely as the result of governors’ creating nomination panels; because these don’t involve the legislature I will not focus on them. All information as to which states have what is from the American Judicature Society’s 2011 report “Judicial Merit Selection: Current Status” located here.

Tomorrow (April 11) I will examine efforts to implement statutory and/or constitutional merit selection systems in states that do not currently have them.

Alabama – Circuit Court in select counties [interim only]: No activity

Alaska – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court: No activity

Arizona – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court in larger counties: A 2011 bill (SCR 1001) revising numerous provisions of the merit selection system (commission composition, number of names submitted, etc.) plus increasing judicial terms will be on the 2012 ballot. A 2012 effort to simply end the merit selection system and replace with partisan elections (SCR 1034 / SB 1371) was rejected in committee.

Colorado – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court: No activity

Connecticut – Supreme Court, Appellate Court, Superior Court: No activity

Florida – Supreme Court, District Court of Appeal; Circuit [interim only]: A 2011 bill (HJR 7111) requiring Supreme Court nominees chosen by the governor be subject to Senate confirmation will be on the 2012 ballot. Several attempts to change the composition of the nominating commissions and allowing a governor to fire a majority of the commissioners at will (vs. staggered terms) failed at the last minute (HB 971 / SB 1570).

Hawaii – Supreme Court, Intermediate Appellate Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, District Court: Constitutional amendments HB 2343 and SB 2209 would require judicial selection commissions to provide more public disclosure of their proceedings, specifically information about those whose names are considered to fill vacancies. The Senate version appears now to be the primary bill, having been approved by the full Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. Another constitutional amendment, SB 2205, would lower the number of names submitted to fill vacancies: for Supreme, Intermediate Appellate & Circuit: from 4-6 to specifically 3. For District: from not less than 6 to specifically 3.

Idaho – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court [interim only]: No activity

Indiana – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Tax Court, Superior and other trial courts in select counties: Proposals to substantially revised (SJR 13) or simply end (SJR 14) merit selection failed to advance.

Iowa – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court: Several bills introduced in 2011 to either alter or end merit selection were carried over into the 2012 session (see database for full list). None advanced.

Kansas – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court at district’s discretion : The prime focus was in ending merit selection for the Court of Appeals; because it is a statutorily created court the change would only require a change in statute rather than a constitutional amendment. While meeting with House approval in 2011 (HB 2101) the Senate failed to take up the bill. Undaunted, the House began attaching it to unrelated pieces of legislation (SB 83) and seeking to end the commission on judicial performance which makes recommendations for or against retention of judges (HB 2396).

Kentucky – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court; District Court [interim only]: No activity

Maine – Supreme Judicial Court and Superior Court: No activity

Minnesota – District Court [interim only]: No activity

Missouri – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Courts in select counties: The state synonymous with merit selection saw efforts to outright end merit selection fail to advance (HJR 77, SJR 41, SJR 42). Efforts to modify the system were and are active. SJR 51 would allow the governor to appoint all nominating commission members subject to senate confirmation and a prohibition of members of the bar, judiciary, or their spouses from serving. HJR 44 increases the names given to the governor to chose from 3 to 5 and allows the governor to reject the first 5 person panel, ask for a second, and then select from the 10. It also alters the composition of the nominating commissions and, like the Florida provisions attempted to do, allows the governor to fire commissioners appointed by prior governors. HJR 44 was approved by the House Special Standing Committee on Judicial Reform 3/21/12 and is currently in the House Rules Committee.

Montana – Supreme Court and District Court [interim only]-: Legislature not in session.

Nebraska – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, County Court: No activity

Nevada – Supreme Court and District Court [interim only]: Legislature not in session.

New Mexico – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, Metropolitan Court: SB 24, which was approved by the Senate but not the House, would have created a special fund to help pay for the judicial nominating commissions associated with the state’s merit selection system. Funds were to have come from gifts, donations, etc. plus $50,000 a year from the legislature itself as an automatic, recurring appropriation.

New York – Court of Appeals (court of last resort in state): A single bill introduced in 2011 (AB 309) would have required the nominating commission submit all qualified names to governor. It has failed to advance.

North Dakota – Supreme Court and District Court: Legislature out of session

Oklahoma – Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, District Court [interim only]: 2011 carry over bills SJR 36 would have ended merit selection for the appellate courts, allowing the governor to appoint anyone qualified subject to senate confirmation while SB 621 would have required nominees chosen via the state’s merit selection system be subject to senate confirmation. Neither have advanced in 2012. Other carry over bills from 2011 to end merit (HJR 1008 & HJR 1009 for appellate courts; SB 543 to fill interim vacancies in District Courts) went nowhere.

Rhode Island – Supreme Court, Superior Court, Family Court, District Court : No activity Update 4/11/12: HB 8043 filed just days ago extends until 2013 an existing law allowing any individual whose name was publicly submitted to the governor by the judicial nominating commission to be eligible for subsequent nomination by the governor.

South Dakota – Supreme Court, Circuit Court [Interim only]: No activity

Tennessee – Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Appeals, Trial Courts [interim only]: Tennessee has seen literally dozens of bills introduced in 2011 and carried over, plus new bills in 2012, dealing with the state’s merit selection system which is due to “sunset” and expire soon.

Put merit selection explicitly in constitution:

HJR 753 Adds legislative confirmation of nominees

HJR 830

SJR 183

SJR 710 Adds legislative confirmation of nominees

Extend merit to June 30, 2013:

HB 3575 / SB 3321

HB 2356 / SB 2346

HB 2537 / SB 2345

Extend merit to June 30, 2014:

HB 3451 (nominating commission only)

End merit:

HB 173 / SB 127

HB 231 / SB 281

HB 958 / SB 699

HB 3615 / SB 3714

SJR 475

SJR 635

Modify:

HB 1017 / SB 82 Retains merit selection, but makes judicial nomination commission recommendations advisory; allows governor to ignore recommendations.

HB 1702 / SB 646 Requires judges selected via merit selection system receive 75% yes in retention election.

HB 3452 / SB 2794 Retains merit selection, but alters nomination process and adds confirmation.

HB 3691 / SB 3652 Requires House and Senate speakers appoint all nine members of the judicial evaluation commission since the judicial council no longer exists.

Utah – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, Juvenile Court: No activity

Vermont – Supreme Court, Superior Court, District Court: No activity

West Virginia – Supreme Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court [interim only]: No activity

Wyoming – Supreme Court, District Court, Circuit Court: No activity

 

3 comments »

Posted in Selection, Special Edition

Tags:

Montana: Legislative referendum to require supreme court be elected by district thrown off ballot

March 26th, 2012

I mentioned previously that Montana’s 2011 legislature passed SB 268 a referendum to require election of supreme court justices from districts that was to on the ballot in 2012. The proposal was to enacted a law to require election by district and not a constitutional amendment.

Because it was a mere statute, however, a state trial judge in Montana has struck SB 268 (now known as LR-119) off the ballot. In sum, the court held that election-by-district was a qualification for office that could only be altered by constitutional amendment. An appeal to the state’s supreme court is expected.

Reports on the decision are available from Gavel Grab.

1 comment »

Posted in Other, Qualification & Terms

Tags:

Jury nullification bills: active in 2011, moving in 2012?

December 22nd, 2011

The issue of jury nullification has come back up into the news lately, but it has been peculating in state legislatures for the last several years. New Hampshire nearly passed a law in 2011 and may yet do so in 2012 that would have required judges instruct jurors about the power to nullify.

2012

Iowa HB 542 Establishes the right of the jury to be absolute and not to be limited by the rules of civil or criminal procedure, the juror’s oath, a court order, or a procedure or practice of the court. Permits party to present evidence relating to the merit, intent, constitutionality, or applicability of the law in a case; the motive, moral perspective, or circumstances of the defendant; the degree and direction of guilt or actual harm done in the case; and the punishment or sanction which may be applied to the losing party in the case. Carried over from 2011 session.

Iowa SB 318 Establishes the right of the jury to be absolute and not to be limited by the rules of civil or criminal procedure, the juror’s oath, a court order, or a procedure or practice of the court. Permits party to present evidence relating to the merit, intent, constitutionality, or applicability of the law in a case; the motive, moral perspective, or circumstances of the defendant; the degree and direction of guilt or actual harm done in the case; and the punishment or sanction which may be applied to the losing party in the case. Carried over from 2011 session.

New Hampshire HB 146 AS AMENDED: Provides in all court proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. Provides the court shall permit the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right to the jury. Approved on  voice vote by full House 3/15/11. Rejected by Senate Judiciary Committee  on tie (2-2) vote 5/26/11. Rejected by full Senate 8-12 on 6/1/11. Re-referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2012 session.

Tennessee HB 1831 Requires, in any criminal jury trial, the trial judge to inform jurors with the following statement, verbatim “In Tennessee and throughout America, jurors possess the responsibility and fundamental right to judge the facts and the law in any court. Jurors are empowered to decide if a law is just, moral, and constitutional. Additionally, jurors are empowered to decide if that law has been violated. A verdict of ‘Guilty’ condemns the defendant, and a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ absolves the defendant of any wrongdoing. The juror’s conscience dictates the exercise of this power.” Carried over into 2012 session.

2011

Iowa HB 542 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Iowa SB 318 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Montana HB 332 Provides parties have the right to argue to the jurors that a law is unconstitutional, is unconstitutional as applied, or should be nullified for any other reason. Provides upon request by a party, the court in any jury trial shall inform the jurors that the jurors may judge both the facts and the law in the case. Provides denial of the instruction is reversible error. Tabled by House Judiciary Committee 18-2 on 2/21/11.

New Hampshire HB 146 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Tennessee HB 1831 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

2010

New Hampshire HB 1347 Provides that in all criminal proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its inherent right to judge the law as well as the facts and to nullify any and all actions they find to be unjust. Provides the court is also mandated to permit the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right of jury nullification to the jury. Rejected by House Judiciary Committee 13-7 on 2/2/10. Rejected by full House 234-113 on 2/17/11.

2009

Alaska HB 140 Provides a defendant has the right to inform the jury of the jury’s power to judge the just application of the law and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Further provides failure to allow the defendant to inform the jury of the jury’s power is grounds for a mistrial. Died in House Judiciary Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Other

Tags:

Legislative study commissions/committees meeting in Louisiana & Montana; will examine judicial compensation, civil procedure

December 9th, 2011

Louisiana’s Judicial Compensation Commission, which is statutorily housed within the legislature, meets December 14 to continue its ongoing study of judicial salaries.

Montana’s Joint Interim Law and Justice Committee meets December 15 & 16. The first day’s agenda includes a review of the Montana Supreme Court’s actions on new Rules of Civil Procedure and whether the committee wants to hold a hearing on them. Also on the agenda:

  • HB 142: Review of Advisory Councils and Reports, including testimony from State Court Administrator Beth McLaughlin, as to which advisory councils/reports should be retained and which should be eliminated
  • Public Defender System
  • SJR 29: Restorative Justice
  • Agency oversight, including the Board of Pardons and Parole & Department of Corrections
  • Update on Legislative Finance Committee performance measures

The December 16 meeting will focus on:

  • Jail Suicide Prevention
  • Emergency detention standards
  • Retention of DNA evidence
  • The state’s Motor Vehicle Enhanced Registration & Licensing Information Network (MERLIN)

No comments »

Posted in Interim Activities

Tags: