Posts Tagged ‘New Mexico’

New Mexico’s governor vetoes bills on judicial pensions, public financing of judicial elections

April 9th, 2013

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has issued several vetoes affecting the state’s judiciary in the last several days (h/t Gavel Grab for the pointer).

On the pension side, Gov. Martinez vetoed SB 25, which would have changed the age and service credit requirements and pension calculations for the judicial retirement system and magistrate retirement system. SB 25 altered cost of living adjustments, employee and employer contribution rates, and provided a new benefit structure starting in July 2013.

In her veto message Gov. Martinez noted

Although there is no doubt that these funds are in dire condition, this legislation does not fairly or adequately solve the problem. Instead, this bill seeks to address the deficiencies in the judicial retirement fund through an increase in taxpayer contributions while failing to address the serious challenges facing the magistrate retirement fund. Even with optimistic projections, this plan only delays the magistrate fund’s eventual bankruptcy.

The second veto of note was of changes to the state’s public financing for judicial elections (SB 16), changes made necessary because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McComish v. Bennett. SB 16 ended the practice of basing matching funds on the spending of a non-qualified opponent and instead based it on the amount of contributions collected by a qualified candidate.

In her veto message Gov. Martinez doubted the constitutionality of the new scheme and also opened up the possibility of reexamination of the state’s judicial selection system (a form of merit selection combined with partisan elections).

[I]t is entirely unclear that this proposed legislation is constitutional and allowing publicly-financed candidates, including judges, to raise an unlimited number of $100 contributions flies in the face of the intent of the law.

We need a broad, ground up reform of the entire judicial election system. We have the unusual procedure of using a bi-partisan judicial nominating commission process with an immediate open partisan election system. I encourage the Legislature to consider broadly reforming our election system when it comes to judges and am willing to address the issue of public-financing reforms in that overall context.

Because New Mexico’s legislature has adjourned sine die there appears to be no way to override the vetoes unless the legislature calls itself back into extraordinary session.

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

New Mexico bill allows more judges to carry firearms into courthouses

February 14th, 2013

The latest effort to let more judges carry firearms in courthouses appears to be in New Mexico. Under existing law a concealed carry license does NOT allow a person to carry a firearm into a courthouse without the presiding judge of the court’s permission.

A concealed handgun license shall not be valid in a courthouse or court facility, unless authorized by the presiding judicial officer for that courthouse or court facility.

Under HB 454 a judge who serves in that courthouse would be able to carry a firearm with a concealed carry license, regardless of whether the presiding judge approves or not.

A concealed handgun license shall not be valid in a courthouse or court facility, unless:

A. carrying concealed handguns is authorized by the presiding judicial officer for that courthouse or court facility; or

B. the concealed handgun license belongs to a judge who works or is designated to work in the courthouse or court facility.

The bill is currently pending in the House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee.

New Mexico Year in Review

December 27th, 2012

None of the bills tracked by Gavel to Gavel in New Mexico in 2012 were enacted.

HB 72 was vetoed. It provided that certain amounts of the civil docket and jury fees be deposited into the General Fund and that contributions to judicial and magistrate retirement be provided from the General Fund. It would have increased contributions to judicial and magistrate retirement funds. It also would have struck existing law that defines “judicial retirement fund” as including “docket and jury fees of metropolitan courts, district courts, the court of appeals and the supreme court.”

One resolution was, however, adopted:

HM 61 Requests administrative office of the courts study and identify actions, to include resources needed, to support a request that the New Mexico supreme court appoint a special auditor to conduct a census of open guardianship and conservator proceedings, by district, throughout the state and grant the special auditor access to the probate court case management system, or to case files if required information is not available through an automated or electronic system, in each district.

Election 2012: The winners and what their victories portend for 2013/2014

November 13th, 2012

Maryland’s Question 1 & Question 2: Both approved

These amendments required the Orphans’ Court (read: probate court) judges in Prince George’s & Baltimore Counties, respectively, to be attorneys. Because of a quirk in the state constitution regarding amendments affecting only a single county, the Questions required majorities both statewide and in the county at issue itself. Both Questions met with 85%+ approval, about what a similar initiative applying to the City of Baltimore got in 2010 (83% statewide, 88% in the City itself).

The upshot is that in 2 of the state’s 4 counties with a population over 500,000 (plus the autonomous and independent City of Baltimore, population ~620k) attorneys of the probate court must be lawyers. The other counties: Montgomery & Anne Arundel.

New Jersey Constitutional Amendment 2 was approved 83% to 17%

The provision changes the state constitution’s prohibition on diminishing of judicial salaries while in office to provide it may not occur “for deductions from such salaries for contributions, established by law from time to time, for pensions as provided for under paragraphs 3 and 5 of Section VI of this Article, health benefits, and other, similar benefits.”

It is not clear what this means for future moves in New Jersey and it remains to be seen if the amendment, adopted after the state supreme court struck down a 2011 law that required judges pay more for their benefits and retirement, will be held to be prospective only, requiring the legislature re-pass the 2011 law.

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 1 was approved 60% to 40%

The amendment adds magistrate judge and additional member of public to Judicial Standards Commission. The result is that the majority of the commission remains laypersons. I mentioned in 2011 there’s be a great deal of legislative interest in changing these commissions, mostly to add more lay persons or to convert the bodies into quasi-appellate courts in order to “punish” judges who reach the “wrong” opinions. While the New Mexico amendment did not appear to come with that sort of freight weighing it down, 2013/2014 legislatures may take (and in the case of Minnesota, will take) the subject up.

Oregon Measure 78 was approved 72% to 28%

Cleans up some confusing language that references two “branches” of the state legislature while the judiciary is referred to as both “the judicial department” and “judicial branch”. The very definition of a technical amendment, it still keeps at least a few references to “judicial department” in the document. It is not at all clear if there’s any interest in going back in for another clean-up bill and as I noted earlier in the election cycle it’s not at all unusual for state constitutions to refer to the judiciary as a “department”.

New Mexico Amendment 1: expanding membership of judicial disciplinary commission; what do other states have?

October 18th, 2012

In November New Mexico voters will decide whether to expand the state’s judicial disciplinary commission, called the Judicial Standards Commission, by adding a magistrate judge and an additional member of public. Currently the Commission has a 3-2-6 balance: 3 judges, 2 lawyers, and 6 non-attorney members of the public.

States vary in terms of the raw number and overall ratio between judges, lawyers, and laypersons. New Mexico and 11 other states give half or more seats to lay persons. Moreover, over half of states (27) put changes to the membership of these commissions into their state’s constitution while another 10 make the membership of these commissions subject to court rule.

Details below the fold
» Read more: New Mexico Amendment 1: expanding membership of judicial disciplinary commission; what do other states have?

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: showdown vote in Michigan set for after November election

October 4th, 2012

Few if any state legislatures are in session, but one of those few is Michigan and that state’s House is set to come back into session November 27 to decide the fate of a bill that would ban the use of international law by the state’s judiciary.

Under Michigan  HB 4769 and SB 701

A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.

After initial bad press and rallies where the bills were introduced earlier this year the bills remained in their respective committees. However the House journal indicates a notice for a motion to discharge HB 4769 from the House Committee on Judiciary was filed by the bill’s primary sponsor September 11 and the motion made September 12. The vote on the motion was postponed until November 27, 2012.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: showdown vote in Michigan set for after November election

New Mexico legislature’s Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee meets July 26-27

July 26th, 2012

The New Mexico legislature’s Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee is set to meet today and Friday. On the committee’s agenda:

  • Prison Population Forecast
  • Program Evaluation: Reducing Recidivism, Cutting Costs and Improving Public Safety in the Incarceration and Supervision of Adult Offenders; and Presentation of a Cost-Benefit Model
  • Sex Offender Parole and Parole Hearings
  • Sex Offender Registration and Notification
  • Office of the Medical Investigator
  • Changes to the Sunshine Portal Transparency Act
  • Missing Persons and Identification of Human Remains

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: signed into law in Kansas, sent to study committee in New Hampshire, still technically alive in MI, NC, PA, & SC

May 29th, 2012

There were only two pieces of activity since the May 14 update:

  • New Hampshire’s Senate approved May 16 on a voice vote its Judiciary Committee’s recommendation to send (HB 1422) to an interim study committee, effectively killing the bill for 2012.
  • In Kansas, that state’s governor signed SB 79 on May 21. News reports are here, prior blog posts detailing provisions (including an attempt to tie it to Citizens United) here and here.

With adjournments already having occurred, and with Missouri set to formal adjourn May 30 (they informally adjourned May 18), only 4 states even have the theoretically potential to advance such legislation in 2012 (barring special sessions):

  • Michigan HB 4769 / SB 701: the legislature is likely not to formally adjourn sine die, thus the legislation remains at least technically alive until a new legislature is sworn-in sometime in 2013.
  • North Carolina HB 640: Legislation carries over from odd-numbered to even-numbered years and the legislature is now back in session as of May 16.
  • Pennsylvania HB 2029: the legislature is likely not to formally adjourn sine die, thus the legislation remains at least technically alive until a new legislature is sworn-in sometime in 2013.
  • South Carolina HB 3490 / SB 444: Adjournment is June 7, however neither bill has advanced out of committee since being introduced in early 2011.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: signed into law in Kansas, sent to study committee in New Hampshire, still technically alive in MI, NC, PA, & SC

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

May 14th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

With most legislatures now out of session, the last month saw little activity on legislation dealing with bans on court use of sharia/international law, but what there was was all in the last week:

May 7: Kansas’ House approves unanimously (120-0)  SB 79 as amended by the House, a statute to ban the use of foreign or international law.

May 8: New Hampshire’s Senate Judiciary Committee recommended referring that state’s version (HB 1422) to an interim summer study.

May 9: Alabama’s Senate voted to indefinitely postpone and effective kill proposed constitutional amendment SB 84.

May 10: New Jersey’s AB 919, which the author had previously noted would be withdrawn, was formally removed from the legislature.

May 11: Kansas’ Senate approved SB 79 on a 33-3 vote. Proponents went out of their way during the debate to note the word “sharia” was not included in the bill, however news reports indicate that sharia was the focus of the bill when introduced and was specifically mentioned during debate.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire