Posts Tagged ‘Oklahoma’

« Older Entries

Merit selection update: TN still a mystery; repeal in OK appears dead for 2013; effort to adopt advances in MN; AZ increases number of names

April 9th, 2013

With legislatures starting to wind down for 2013, efforts to adopt, modify, or end merit selection are up against key deadlines

1) On April 5 Arizona’s governor  signed HB 2600, a bill to require the state’s merit selection commissions submit at least 5 names to the governor to pick from (the constitution provides at least 3 names must be given).

2) Minnesota’s SB 1082, an effort to adopt merit selection for all judicial offices (currently in place for interim appointments for trial court judges only), advanced in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 2.

3) The Oklahoma Senate’s effort to repeal merit selection (SJR 21) appears set to fail in the House for 2013.  Oklahoma House Rules require all Senate bills & joint resolutions, like SJR 21, be approved by the assigned House committee by April 11. However, the House Judiciary Committee has not put it on its agenda for today (April 9) and the House committee calendar for this week indicates the House Judiciary will not meet again before the April 11 deadline.

Death for SJR 21 in 2013 does not mean it is over for the Oklahoma legislature altogether. Under House Rule 6.9 SJR 21 will be back in the House Judiciary Committee at the start of the 2014 session.

4) It still remains unclear what, if anything, is going to happen in Tennessee, but whatever happens we’ll know in the next 24 hours.

I discussed the problem in depth here, in short the elements of the existing merit selection system: the nominating commission (JNC) and performance evaluation commission (JPEC) are set to expire. The JNC is set to end this year (June 30, 2012 + 1 year “wind down” period = June 20, 2013) and the JPEC in 2014 (June 30, 2013 + 1 year to “wind down”).

There are a great many moving parts, but the main sticking point occurred in March when an unrelated bill (SB 1058) was gutted and replaced with a major overhaul to the JPEC. Under the amendment the existing evaluation commission and all its members would be ended, a new JPEC installed and the new commission would have the power to not only change the criteria for “judicial performance” but allowed to block judges it deems not qualified from even getting on the ballot (currently the commission can recommend against retention but cannot actually stop the judge from trying). Proponents argue that because retention elections have failed to remove judges except one in the past, the JPEC should be allowed to do so.

Retention elections are set for November 2014 for all current Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals judges.

A list of all the Tennessee JNC/JPEC extension bills are below.

Bills Provisions Hearings/Status
HB 364 / SB 215 Extends the judicial nominating commission until June 30, 2015. Senate Government Operations on 4/10/13
HB 695 /SB 216 Extends the judicial performance evaluation commission until June 30, 2015. House Government Operations Committee hearing on 4/9/13; Senate Government Operations hearing on 4/10/13
HB 796 Extends the judicial nominating commission until June 30, 2014. Approved as amended by full House 2/21/13.
SB 566 (counterpart HB 796 as originally introduced) Extends the judicial nominating commission until June 30, 2013. Senate Government Operations hearing on 4/10/13
HB 835 /SB 567 Extends the judicial performance evaluation commission until June 30, 2014. Approved by full House 3/18/13. Senate Government Operations hearing on 4/10/13.
SB 1058 (no House counterpart) AS AMENDED: Removes all judicial performance evaluation commission members. Replaces with 9 members, none of whom are judges (currently there must be 3 out of 9). Provides new JPEC allowed to rewrite any existing evaluation criteria (current criteria are set by Supreme Court Rule 27). Provides if JPEC recommends against judge, judge is not allowed to run for retention election (currently may run even if JPEC recommends against). Approved as amended by Senate Judiciary Committee 3/12/13. Senate Government Operations hearing on 4/10/13.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Bills to allow more guns into courthouses advance in six states

March 18th, 2013

A litany of legislation has been introduced in the 2013 to allow more people to carry firearms into U.S. state courthouses. Today I’ll be looking at the bills that have moved or are moving in this regard.

Arizona

Current law in Arizona leaves the question of carrying of weapons to the presiding judge of the particular court, with some exceptions. One in particular is that a peace officer or retired peace officer may only carry if a) they have the presiding judge’s permission or b) they are in the court to provide court security or respond to an emergency (A.R.S. § 38-1102)

HB 2516 Effectively removes the presiding judge’s authority in this area and specifically allows peace officers acting in an official capacity and carrying official peace officer identification to carry firearms in court. A floor amendment added a proviso: a presiding judge may establish rules or policies consistent with the new law enforcement carry authorization provision “for the protection of the court”.

The bill as amended was approved by the full House on February 28 and the Senate Judiciary Committee March 11.

Georgia

I mentioned a few weeks ago the situation in Georgia; by law, firearms are not generally permitted inside the state’s courthouses and there is a specific crime of carrying in a courthouse (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127(b)(2)), but there are 16 categorical exceptions for people like law enforcement, certain judges, certain retired judges, prosecutors, etc.

HB 512 would effectively allow anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry into a courthouse UNLESS the court provided security screening at the doorway. Specifically, it provides

A license holder shall be authorized to carry a weapon in a government building or courthouse where ingress into such building or courthouse is not restricted or screened by security personnel during the hours the government building or courthouse is open for business. A person who is not a license holder and who attempts to enter a government building or courthouse with a weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who enters or attempts to enter a government building or courthouse where ingress is restricted or screened by security personnel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided, however, that a person who exits such building or courthouse or leaves such location upon his or her observation that such building or courthouse has security personnel restricting or screening ingress into such building or courthouse shall not be guilty of violating this subsection

HB 512 was met with surprise by judges, who have now come out in opposition. Despite the protest by judges, the bill was approved by the full House on March 7.

In addition to HB 512, HB 60 amends an existing categorical exemption and would allow all retired state and federal judges to carry. It was approved by the full House February 13.

Kansas

Like Georgia, Kansas provides a general prohibition and a specific crime of carrying of firearms into courthouses, with specific exception for certain judges and some others (K.S.A. § 21-6309 & 75-7c10).

HB 2055, echoing Georgia’s language, would effectively allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to enter a courthouse unless the court provides “adequate security” defined as screening at the front door.

“Adequate security measures” means the use of electronic equipment and personnel at public entrances to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the state or municipal building, including, but not limited to, metal detectors, metal detector wands or any other equipment used for similar purposes to ensure that weapons are not permitted to be carried into such building by members of the public.

An amendment to re-establish the ban on courthouse carrying failed 60-61 on the House floor.

North Dakota

Existing law makes it a crime to carry a weapon into ”publicly owned or operated buildings”, including courthouses, with several exceptions for certain judges, law enforcement, etc. (North Dakota Code 62.1-02-05)

Like the other bills, HB 1366 would effectively allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to enter a courthouse.

Unlike the Georgia and Kansas bills, there is no exception for instances where the court provides screening at the door. Also unlike the other bills, this one would appear to allow out-of-state residents to carry in to North Dakota courthouses.

This section [prohibiting carrying into "publicly owned or operated buildings"] does not apply to…An individual possessing a valid concealed weapons license from this state or who has reciprocity under section 62.1-04-03.1 authorizing the individual to carry a firearm concealed…

HB 1366 was approved by the full House February 27 and has a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee March 19.

Another North Dakota bill (SB 2145) would allow all municipal court judges in the state to carry firearms into their courthouses (currently, only municipal court judges who are licensed attorneys may do so). SB 2145 was approved by the full Senate on January 23 and is set for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on March 20.

Oklahoma

Existing law (21 Okl. St. § 1277) provides a general ban on carrying firearms into a “structure, building, or office space which is owned or leased by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public” such as a courthouse.  There are categorical exemptions for judges, law enforcement, etc.

HB 1723 as introduced expands the list of judges who may carry into a courthouse to include municipal court judges. As amended however, the bill goes farther, allowing peace officers on active duty to carry their weapons anywhere in the state and making other changes to where and when off-duty peace officers may carry. The bill, as amended, was approved by the full House March 14.

Wyoming

State law (Wyo. Stat. § 6-8-104) provides a concealed carry permit does not allow a person to carry into “any courtroom, except that nothing in this section shall preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in the courtroom”. There is no specific penalty for violation of this provision. In 2012, a local judge issued an administrative order banning all weapons from the courthouse, not just his courtroom.

HB 216, was introduced to make it a felony to carry a firearm into a courtroom, provides a presiding judge may carry a weapon into courtroom and waive the prohibition on carrying in the courtroom. The bill, however, makes no mention of carrying into a courthouse and proponents are  clear they intended the bill to continue to allow for courthouse carrying.

 

No comments »

Posted in Other, Rule Making Authority

Tags:

Oklahoma Senate approves single 20-year term for appellate judges, ends merit selection in state, allows governor to pick chief justice

March 14th, 2013

I mentioned yesterday that March 11-13, 2013 was probably the single biggest 3 day period for merit selection in decades. Add one more merit-selection change and one more elimination to the list.

Oklahoma’s Senate yesterday approved SJR 21 and  SJR 24, constitutional amendments that would effective change the state’s merit selection system into a quasi-federal one. In addition, the Senate approved a plan to take away the state supreme court’s power to name its own chief justice.

SJR 21 would outright eliminate merit selection for the state’s appellate courts, allowing the governor to pick any qualified person for appointment. The appointment would be subject to review by the Judicial Nominating Commission, but that review would be just that, a review. The JNC would have no power to stop the appointment and no input prior. The JNC’s recommendation would be sent to the Oklahoma Senate, which would vote to confirm the governor’s pick. The Senate would then vote to confirm, or be called into special session once a quarter to confirm the nominee.

SJR 24 appears to contemplate SJR 21 NOT being adopted (i.e. that merit selection survives in Oklahoma). SJR 24 allows the state’s appellate court judges to sit for a single 20-year term. Currently appellate judges in the state are selected via a merit selection system and stand for yes/no retention elections every 6 years. Under SJR 24 the retention election portion of the state’s merit selection system would end and the judge would simply remain in office for 20 years. SJR 24 specifically does NOT alter the method of selection and specifies “No such person shall be required to be on a retention ballot during such twenty-year period.” However, were SJR 21 adopted, it could created a quasi-federal system (governor appoints, senate confirms, judge sits for long period of time) but because certain language in SJR 21 and SJR 24 are changed in different ways, it is unclear which would hold sway should both be adopted.

Moreover, SJR 24 is prospective and specifically deals with current appellate judges: they may serve their current 6 year term and 20 years on top of that.

SJR 24 must be approved by House before going on the 2014 ballot.

Finally SJR 22 would remove the Supreme Court’s power to name its chief justice. Currently 22 states allow the supreme court to picks it own chief, while another 7 operate on a strict seniority system (i.e. longest serving justice is chief). 12 states give the state’s governor some power to pick the chief, but no other state allows the governor the sort of unrestrained power considered by Oklahoma; other states require the governor’s selection be subject to a merit selection process and/or confirmation by the legislature.

1 comment »

Posted in Qualification & Terms, Selection

Tags:

Oklahoma Senate Rules Committee approves broad ban on use of electronic devices in courtrooms; full Senate vote possible next week

March 1st, 2013

The question of whether courts can or should ban electronic devices in courthouses and courtrooms has been batted back and forth for years, with many state courts coming up with usage and possession policies (click here for a list of such policies). Oklahoma may be the first state in the country, however, to enact a specific law on the practice.

Oklahoma’s Senate Rules committee last week approved SB 403 which would provide an outright ban on electrons devices in the state’s courtrooms.

Specifically, SB 403 can be broken down into two parts. The first is effectively a ban on cameras in the courtroom without the court’s consent

Unless specifically authorized by the court, all means of photographing, recording, broadcasting and televising shall be prohibited in any court of this state.

It is the second portion that addresses spectators only and their e-devices.

Unless specifically authorized by the court, spectators shall not use computers, cellular telephones or any other electronic devices in any court of this state.

The restrictions would not apply to

  1. the presentation of evidence by audio or video
  2. making the official record of a proceeding
  3. court security
  4. any other purpose authorized by the court as necessary to the administration of justice

SB 403 is now on the Senate floor and could be voted on as early as Monday, March 4.

No comments »

Posted in Other

Tags:

Efforts to enact, modify, or end merit selection for judges: what is moving and what is not

February 27th, 2013

I’ve had several readers ask for a synopsis of what is gong on in states to enact, modify, or end merit selection in 2013. This post is intended to respond to those queries. The latest information can always be found at the Gavel to Gavel database located here.

Details below the fold.

» Read more: Efforts to enact, modify, or end merit selection for judges: what is moving and what is not

No comments »

Posted in Selection, Special Edition

Tags:

Oklahoma House bill would make it unlawful for an attorney to contribute to a judicial campaign

January 24th, 2013

There’s been several legislative efforts in the last few years to require judges recuse when attorneys contribute to their judicial campaigns. An Oklahoma House bill (HB 2251) takes this one step further and makes such contributions unlawful.

HB 1543 would amend the state’s Attorneys and the State Bar Statute (Title 5) to add the following:

It shall be unlawful for an attorney to make any contribution to a candidate for judicial office. For purposes of this section, “judicial office” means all elective offices for district judge, associate district judge and offices for which Declarations of Candidacy are filed with the State Election Board.

There is no indication what the punishment for violation of the provision would be.

This is not the first time Oklahoma’s considered such a plan. In 2008 HB 2251 was introduced, using the exact same language as HB 1543 of 2013, but by a different member of the Oklahoma House (Rep. Marian Cooksey in 2008; Rep. Ken Walker in 2013).

 

1 comment »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Oklahoma’s effort to ban court use of international/sharia law having been held unconstitutional, new version introduced avoids using word “sharia”

January 23rd, 2013

I’ve been following for years the efforts in Oklahoma to ban the use of sharia law by the courts starting with (and focused on) 2010′s HJR 1056, approved by Oklahoma voters in November 2010 and later struck down by the federal courts (and leading to an effort by the 2011 Oklahoma legislature to impeach the federal trial judge that struck down the statute).

There was little activity on the subject in the 2012 Oklahoma legislature (a 2011 bill went nowhere in the 2012 session) it appeared the subject had died.

2013 however finds a new effort filed as HB 1486. This version, following in the footsteps of other states that learned the lesson of Oklahoma not to specifically name sharia specifically, instead provides:

Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.

The bill is prefiled in the House with no committee assignment.

 

 

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

2012 effort to term limit Oklahoma appellate judges is back in modified form: 20 years and out but NOT retroactive

January 18th, 2013

Last year I noted a push in the Oklahoma Senate to set term limits for the state’s appellate courts, limits that would have been retroactive and could have effective emptied the state’s appellate courts.

The bill’s author has now returned with SJR 24 of 2013. While the 2012 version (SB 1729) would have set a fixed 12 years in office for appellate courts and made it retroactive, the 2013 version sets a 20 year time limit and makes it prospective: judges serving on January 1, 2015 would not be forced out but would get 20 years from their appointment or last election.

As I noted last year, no state provides for term limits for their judges.

SJR 24 has been prefiled in the Senate but not referred to a committee.

No comments »

Posted in Qualification & Terms

Tags:

Oklahoma Year in Review: Legislature rejects judicial pay raise; e-signatures on court documents; small claims

December 31st, 2012

New laws affecting the courts enacted by the Oklahoma legislature in 2012 include the following:

HB 2192 Exempts court filings from rules promulgated by Secretary of State under Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Requires use of e-signature when filing documents with the courts.

HB 2578 Authorizes counties and county officers to contract with a collection agency to recover court penalties, costs, fines and fees in cases in district court in which the accused has failed to appear or otherwise failed to satisfy a monetary obligation ordered by the court.

HB 2713 Provides forms and procedures associated with Court Clerks Revolving Fund to be developed and implemented by the Administrative Director of the Courts (currently State Auditor and Inspector).

HJR 1093 Rejects 6% increase in the compensation for members of the State Judiciary as approved by the Board on Judicial Compensation on September 20, 2011.

SB 1196 Increases small claims jurisdiction from $6,000 to $7,500.

SB 1346 Provides in the event of an ethical disqualification by a municipal judge, the senior municipal judge may appoint, on a case-by-case basis, a sitting municipal judge in another municipality within the same county or an adjacent county to act as a special judge for the purposes of hearing the case.

SB 1733 Permits unconcealed carry of firearm in court locations by a judge.

 

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags:

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

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags: