Posts Tagged ‘Virginia’

Ohio Issue 1: What other states tried to increase or remove their judicial retirement ages and how did they do?

October 27th, 2011

Ohio voters will head to the polls November 8 to decide the fate of Issue 1, marking the sixth time in 20 years the question of judicial retirement has been on the ballot (Hawaii 2006; Louisiana 1995 & 2003; Pennsylvania 2001; Texas 2007; Vermont 2002), with 4 victories to 2 defeats.

Four legislatures have adopted statutes to alter retirement (Indiana 2011; Kansas 2003 & 2010; North Carolina 1992; Vermont 2003). Moreover, Arizona has advanced a proposed change for the 2012 ballot while New York voters will probably address the issue in 2014. This marks a trend over the last several year in particular of state legislatures confronting judges living longer and the question of whether there should be any limits on service at all.

State by state breakdown below the fold.

» Read more: Ohio Issue 1: What other states tried to increase or remove their judicial retirement ages and how did they do?

Why Senate reconfirmation for incumbent state judges? Why not House? Or joint? Or election?

October 24th, 2011

Several weeks ago I looked at the historical development of why some states have legislative involvement in judicial confirmation for their appellate courts and whether it was only the state’s senate that had a role or if it was a joint process. To reiterate, one of the big presses in the last year has been to put into place something akin to the “federal model” of senate (only) confirmation. But unlike the federal model, which includes life tenure, almost all these proposals include a reconfirmation at some point.

It should be noted that of the 11 states that give their legislature some role in the confirmation of appellate judges:

  • 6 give at least some appellate  judges a decade or more on the bench between reconfirmations: Delaware (12 years), Hawaii (10 years), South Carolina (10 years), Utah (Supreme Court: 10 years), Virginia (Supreme Court: 12 years),  and New York (Court of Appeals: 14 years)
  • 3 give reconfirmation to the House and Senate: Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia
  • 3 remove the legislature outright from reconfirmation: Hawaii (judicial nominating commission); Maryland and Utah (retention election)
  • 2 at least have the option of lifetime or near-lifetime appointment: Rhode Island (life) and New Jersey (until 70 after reconfirmation)

Roles of legislatures in appellate judicial re-confirmation

Connecticut: 8 year term for Supreme Court and Appellate Court. Judicial Selection Commission evaluates incumbent judge, with statutory presumption “that each incumbent judge who seeks reappointment to the same court qualifies for retention in judicial office” and provides burden on commission to demonstrate otherwise (see 51-44a (e) and (f), of the Connecticut General Statutes). Commission sends reappoint/don’t reappoint recommendation to Governor who renominates incumbent judge. Legislature jointly reconfirms.

Delaware: 12 year term for the Supreme Court. Governor renominates. Senate reconfirms.

Hawaii: 10 year term for Supreme Court and Intermediate Appellate Court. Judicial selection commission reappoints.

Maine: 7 year term for Supreme Judicial Court. Governor renominates. Joint House/Senate legislative committee recommends reconfirmation or rejection. That recommendation is binding unless the Senate overrides with 2/3 vote.

Maryland: 1 year (at least) initial term for Court of Appeals and Court of Special Appeals. Yes/no retention election. 10 year subsequent term.

New Jersey: 7 year initial term. Governor renominates. Senate reconfirms. Service until 70 for subsequent term.

New York (Court of Appeals, state’s court of last resort): 14 year term for Court of Appeals. Commission on Judicial Nomination resubmits names along incumbent’s to Governor. Governor renominates incumbent or nominates new person. Senate confirms or reconfirms.

NOTE: the state’s primary intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, has no role for the legislature in terms of reconfirmation. The Governor elevates and may reappoint to the Appellate Division from the judges elected locally in partisan elections to the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “Supreme Court”). For example, when his 14 year term in the trial court ended in 2011, the Hon. Henry J. Scudder had to run for re-election and then be reappointed back to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (see story here).

Rhode Island: N/A (Serve for life)

South Carolina: 10 year term for the Supreme Court, 6 year term for the Court of Appeals. Judicial Merit Selection Commission evaluates incumbent judge and all others seeking position. Commission sends names to Legislature. Legislature jointly reappoints or appoints someone else. (See Title 2, Chapter 19 S.C. Code)

Utah: 3 year (at least) initial term. Yes/no retention election. 10 year subsequent term for Supreme Court, 6 year subsequent term for Court of Appeals.

 

Virginia: 12 year term for the Supreme Court, 6 year term for the Court of Appeals. Legislature jointly reappoints or appoints someone else.

 

 

Virginia’s Committee on District Courts meeting 10/20, will look at legislative proposals by the Judicial Conference of Virginia

October 18th, 2011

Virginia’s Committee on District Court is set to meet on October 20. The Committee, made up of 14 members (8 legislators, 6 jurists) will examine:

  • Report of the District Court Forms Advisory Committee
  • Proposals Regarding Schedules of Prepayable Offenses
  • Legislative Proposals by the Judicial Conference of Virginia for District Courts
  • Request for Waiver of Magistrate Certification
  • Informational Items
  • Department of Judicial Services Visit Reports

 

Florida and Virginia: Letting retired judges/justices appear as counsel & practice law in state courts

September 30th, 2011

Mandatory retirement ages plus increasing life expectancy is meaning more judges having years of potential active practice after they forced to relinquish their robes. In some states they may be potentially recalled as senior judges or appointed as hearing officers. However, in several states, retired judges and justices who are taking state retirement may not appear in a state court at all representing a client. Two states in particular, Florida and Virginia, have seen legislative activity to loosen the restriction.

Prior to the 2011 General Assembly session, Virginia retirement law (51.1-309) included the following:

§ 51.1-309. Appearance as counsel in certain forums prohibited.

A. No former justice or judge of a court of record of the Commonwealth and no former full-time judge of a court not of record of the Commonwealth, who is retired and receiving retirement benefits under the provisions of the Judicial Retirement System, shall appear as counsel in any case in any court of the Commonwealth. (bolding added)

The general prohibition in 51.1-309(A) remains, but SB 902 of 2011 added a limited exception for retired judges/justices doing pro bono work:

C. The provisions of subsection A shall not be applicable if (i) the retired justice or judge has been retired for at least two years and is not authorized for temporary recall by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, (ii) the retired justice or judge is appearing as counsel, pro bono, for an indigent person in a civil matter, (iii) such civil matter is assigned or referred to the retired justice or judge by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar, and (iv) the retired justice or judge is not an employee, officer, or board member of such nonprofit legal aid program. Nothing herein shall relieve the retired justice or judge from having obtained any license or meeting any requirement in connection with the appearance as counsel as required by law, rule, or regulation.

Florida’s current law is even more restrictive. Under 25.151 “No justice of the Supreme Court of Florida drawing retirement compensation as provided by any law shall engage in the practice of law.” In 2011, HB 7113  and HB 7199 would have outright repealed this ban. HB 7199 was the implementation legislation for HJR 7111 as originally introduced. That HJR, as readers may recall, would have divided up the state’s supreme court into civil & criminal panels, changed the court’s rule making powers, etc. (click here for posts on the subject)

HB 7113, however, had nothing to do with HJR. While it was approved by the full House it nevertheless but died in Senate Messages. HB 7113 has already been reintroduced and prefiled for 2012 as HB 4055 but not yet assigned to a committee.

 

Virginia’s judicial redistricting committee plan to be unveiled today

September 19th, 2011

I’ve previously mentioned the 2011 legislative effort to redistrict Virginia’s judicial districts. In sum, the bill was almost on the verge of passage when it was decided to refer the matter to the state’s Supreme Court,resulting in a committee appointed by the Chief Justice to look at the issue.

Today’s interim joint meeting of Virginia’s Committee on District Courts and Judicial Council on September 19 will see the committee’s recommendations released. The Committee’s 14 members include 8 legislators, including the chairs of the Committees for Courts of Justice in the Senate and House of Delegates. The chairs also serve as members of the Council as well.

According to the Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly, the committee will recommend against redistricting, instead suggesting a system of regional chief judges for assigning judges to fill workload gaps as needed.

The Committee/Council agenda is:

  1. Welcome and Comments by Chief Justice Kinser
  2. Overview of Committee Work and Committee Recommendations Judge Thomas D. Horne, Chairman Judicial Boundary Realignment Study Committee
  3. Review of Committee Realignment Models Dr. Cyril W. Miller, Jr. Director of Judicial Planning
  4. Legislative Proposal Ms. Katya N. Herndon Director of Legislative and Public Relations
  5. Adjournment

2011 South-Atlantic indigent defense legislation

September 13th, 2011

Law

Florida HB 7067 / SB 1016 / SB 7018 Re-creates Indigent Civil Defense Trust Fund within Justice Administrative Commission without modification. Repeals provisions that would have terminated the trust fund in 2012. (see also HB 7065 / SB 1014 / SB 7016)

Florida HB 443 / HB 7199 / SB 170 Requires that each public defender implement a system to electronically file court documents with the clerk of the court. Requires Florida Public Defender Association report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by a specified date on the progress made in implementing the electronic filing system.

Georgia HB 238 Reconstitutes and vacates all currently serving members of the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council. Provides for appointing new members. Alters powers and duties of the council and council director, council’s responsibility to set policy and standards, and the director’s responsibility to develop rules and regulations to efficiently administer the provisions of the law related to public defenders. Provides director to appoint circuit public defenders and requires two-thirds vote of council to remove the chairperson of the council or to overturn the director’s decision regarding the removal of a circuit public defender. Requires certain annual reports be prepared by the director, rather than the council, and a copy sent to the Supreme Court.  Changes provisions relating to the circuit public defender supervisory panel. Changes provisions relating to appointing attorneys in conflict of interest cases.

Maryland SB 515 Specifies that an individual whose assets and net annual income are less than 100% of the federal poverty guidelines may be determined eligible for services from the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) without an assessment. Clarifies that the District Court, a Circuit Court, and the Court of Special Appeals are prohibited from appointing an attorney through OPD to represent an indigent individual if (1) there is a conflict in legal representation in a matter involving multiple defendants and one of the defendants is being represented by or through OPD; or (2) OPD declines to provide representation to an indigent individual entitled to representation.

North Carolina HB 243 Provides fee charged by clerk for certificates under seal is waived for appointed attorneys representing indigent clients.

Virginia SB 902 Permits retired justices or judges to appear as counsel in cases in courts of the Commonwealth if (i) the retired justice or judge has been retired for at least two years and is not authorized for temporary recall by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, (ii) the retired justice or judge is appearing as counsel, pro bono, for an indigent person in a civil matter, (iii) such civil matter is assigned or referred to the retired justice or judge by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar, and (iv) the retired justice or judge is not an employee, officer, or board member of such nonprofit legal aid program.

Active/Carried over into 2012

Georgia HB 648 Implements HR 977 (Constitutional Amendment). Creates trust fund for indigent defense dollars collected by clerks. Provides and specifies certain fees and assessments are dedicated to funding legal services for indigent persons accused of crimes and delinquent acts. Provides such funds are to be remitted to the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council.

Georgia HB 977 (Constitutional Amendment) Creates trust fund for indigent defense dollars collected by clerks. Provides and specifies certain fees and assessments are dedicated to funding legal services for indigent persons accused of crimes and delinquent acts.

Approved by one chamber

West Virginia HB 3067 / SB 549 Increases certain civil filings fees currently collected by circuit courts, and impose a new docketing fee for unspecified civil appeals including family court appeals but not including Workers’ Comp cases or, presumably, actions in the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction, to be collected by the Court and paid, at its discretion, to either Legal Aid of West Virginia (LAWV) or into the Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Accounts (IOLTA) fund. Approved by full House, died in Senate Finance Committee.

West Virginia SB 568 Clarifies that an attorney from the public defender office shall be appointed by a judge in all cases where an attorney-at-law is required to be appointed for an eligible client. Approved by full Senate, died in House Judiciary Committee.

West Virginia SCR 79 Requests Joint Committee on Government and Finance study need for authorizing executive director of Public Defender Services control over public defender corporations. Approved by full Senate, died in House.

Died in committee

North Carolina SB 596 Expands state’s office of public defender system to every county in state. Realigns public defender districts accordingly.

Virginia HB 1570 / SB 908 Increases from $10 to $14 fee on most civil actions filed in trial courts to pay for free civil legal representation provided for the poor by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar. Changes from $9 to $13 the amount that, from such additional fee, is to be credited to the Virginia State Bar’s Legal Aid Services Fund.

West Virginia SB 482 Requires public defender corporations of all the judicial circuits to be centralized under the executive director of Public Defender Services and grants executive director rulemaking authority.

Interim committee activity in Kentucky, Virginia

September 13th, 2011

The Kentucky Joint Interim Judiciary Committee will meet September 14. On the agenda: arrest, prosecution, and treatment of juveniles under 10.

Virginia’s Committee on District Courts is set to meet jointly with the state’s Judicial Council on September 19 in Richmond. The Committee’s 14 members include 8 legislators, including the chairs of the Committees for Courts of Justice in the Senate and House of Delegates. The chairs also serve as members of the Council as well.

2011 South-Atlantic bail/pretrial release legislation

August 16th, 2011

Law

Florida HB 347 / SB 514 Requires defendant who was arrested for leaving scene of crash involving death to be held in custody until brought before judge for admittance to bail in certain circumstances.

Florida HB 575 / SB 844 Authorizes court, in determining whether to require or set amount of bail, to consider likelihood that person will be imprisoned for violation of probation or community control.

Maryland HB 682 / SB 809 Prohibits a court that exercises criminal jurisdiction from refunding a forfeiture of bail or collateral at a specified time unless a private surety pays a forfeiture of bail or collateral within a specified time period after a defendant’s failure to appear. Requires a court to refund a forfeiture of bail bond or collateral that was not paid within a specified time period after a defendant’s failure to appear under specified circumstances.

North Carolina HB 649 Amends laws pertaining to grounds for revocation of licensure regulating bail bondsman and allowing a bail agent on behalf of a surety company to make written motions setting aside bail forfeiture and relief from final judgment of bail forfeiture under laws pertaining the criminal procedure.

Virginia HB 1713 Adds to the list of crimes charged for which there is a presumption against admission to bail, subject to rebuttal, obstruction of justice where a person threatens bodily harm or force to knowingly attempt to intimidate or impede a witness.

Virginia HB 2060 Provides that a magistrate who is to set the terms of bail of a person arrested and brought before him pursuant to a capias shall, unless circumstances exist that require him to impose more restrictive terms of bail, set bail in accordance with the order of the court that issued the capias if such an order is affixed to or made a part of the capias by the court.

Virginia HB 2106  / SB 925 Allows GPS for persons on secured bond.

Virginia HB 2437 Provides that a licensed bail bondsman shall not charge less than 10 percent or more than 15 percent of the amount of the bond for a bail bond premium and shall not loan money with interest for the purpose of helping another obtain a bail bond. Defines bail bond premium as the amount of money paid to a licensed bail bondsman for the execution of a bail bond.

Introduced with committee and/or floor approval

Florida HB 1379 Provides that a defendant is eligible to receive government-funded pretrial release only by order of the court after the court finds in writing, upon consideration of the defendant’s affidavit of indigence: That the defendant is indigent or partially indigent as set forth in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the defendant has not previously failed to appear at any required court proceeding. Prohibits defendants from participating in a pretrial release program if the defendant’s income is over 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines prescribed for the size of the household of the defendant by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, unless the defendant is receiving certain financial assistance. Requires that defendants who seek to post a surety bond pursuant to a bond schedule established by administrative order as an alternative to government-funded pretrial release be permitted to do so without any interference or restriction by a pretrial release program. Requires pretrial release programs certify annually, in writing, to the chief circuit court judge, that the program has complied with the reporting requirements in current statutes.

Florida HB 265 Requires court considering whether to release defendant on bail to determine whether defendant is subject to registration as sexual offender or predator and, if so, to hold defendant without bail until first appearance on case.

Florida HB 7089 Requires a court, when determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, to consider the defendant’s legal residency status in the United States.

North Carolina SB 756 Revises laws related to pretrial release programs. Eliminates unsecured appearance bond as a pretrial release condition. Provides no state funds may be appropriated for the support of a pretrial release program.

South Carolina HB 3895 / SB 795 Provides that an appearance bond is valid for a certain time period in circuit and magistrates or municipal courts under certain circumstances. Provides a procedure to relieve the surety of liability when the time period has run.

Virginia HB 2332  Provides if judicial officer concurs in the determination of police officer that defendant is present in U.S. illegally and finds probable cause to believe that the person will not appear for trial or hearing, the judicial officer may refuse to admit the person to bail.

Introduced with committee rejection

Florida SB 372 Requires each pretrial release program established by ordinance of a county commission, by administrative order of a court, or by any other means in order to assist in the release of a defendant from pretrial custody to conform to the eligibility criteria set forth by the act. Preempts any conflicting local ordinances, orders, or practices. Requires that the defendant satisfy certain eligibility criteria in order to be assigned to a pretrial release program, etc

Florida SB 494 Requires a court considering whether to release a defendant on bail to determine whether the defendant is subject to registration as a sexual offender or predator and, if so, to hold the defendant without bail until the first appearance on the case.

Maryland HB 272 Requires, notwithstanding any other law or Maryland Rule, that a court or a District Court commissioner ask a defendant to provide information on the defendant’s legal status in the United States before the court or a District Court commissioner authorizes the defendant’s pretrial release on bail or personal recognizance. Authorizes the court or a District Court commissioner to consider the information on the defendant’s legal status in deciding whether to authorize the pretrial release of the defendant.

Maryland HB 1264 Prohibits a District Court commissioner from authorizing the pretrial release of a defendant charged with causing abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult in the first or second degree.

Maryland HB 768 / SB 940 Allows a defendant in a circuit court or the District Court or a private surety acting for the defendant who posts a bail bond in an amount that is 10% of the penalty amount to deposit with the clerk of court half of the amount immediately and the other half within 6 months later.

Introduced with other or no activity

Georgia HB 32 Revises the requirements for releasing a person on his or her own recognizance.

Georgia HB 252 Add violations for which cash bonds can be accepted in lieu of bail and proceedings for failure to appear.

Georgia HB 288 Require as a condition of bail for certain offenses that DNA collection be performed on the person seeking bond.

Maryland HB 898 / SB 686 Provides that if a bail bondsman arranges to accept payment of a bail bond premium in installments, the installment agreement shall include information about the total premium amount owed, down payment made, and other terms of the installment contract. Requires that information about the bail bond premium installment payment agreement be included in an affidavit of surety. Requires bail bondsmen, if arranging bail bond premium installment agreements, to follow specified collection procedures.

North Carolina SB 740 Allows a bail agent on behalf of a surety company to make written motions setting aside bail forfeiture and relief from final judgment of bail forfeiture under laws pertaining the criminal procedure.

South Carolina SB 45 & SB 266 Provides Circuit Court to hear  motions regarding reconsideration of bond for general sessions offenses. Provides defense motions to reconsider may be heard by the circuit court only upon the defendant’s prima facie showing of a material change in circumstances.

South Carolina SB 267 Provides a person committing or attempting to commit a general sessions offense while on bail bond must be imprisoned five years in addition to the punishment for the principal offense.

West Virginia HB 2068 Provides certain specific statutory conditions of bond in cases involving crimes between family or household members in lieu of allowing the issuing authority to set conditions of bail.

What’s in a name? Alaska (sorta) changes title for state court administrator, and why it matters historically speaking

August 3rd, 2011

I noted in Issue 5:30 that the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) was meeting this week in Atlanta, GA. Also meeting at the same time is the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA). While some states make use of the title “Court Administrator” or “State Court Administrator”, most do not. Alaska, for example, makes reference to an “administrative director”, but of what precisely? “Courts” or “the Alaska Court System”? And, aside from semantics, does it matter?

SB 61 of 2011, a set of corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes, was enacted earlier this year. According to testimony delivered in the Senate State Affairs Committee on February 15, 2011 and the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 28, the single biggest change made by SB 61 relates to the administrative director of the Alaska Court System, formerly known as the administrative director of courts. In Alaska, the position is established by the constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 16)

The chief justice shall, with the approval of the supreme court, appoint an administrative director to serve at the pleasure of the supreme court and to supervise the administrative operations of the judicial system.

However, as noted in committee, the Alaska constitution does not establish a title. According to the revisor’s office, at some point, the court system changed its usage from “administrative director of the courts” to “administrative director of the Alaska Court System”, but not all the statutes did so. SB 61 fixed that by making them all uniformly “administrative director of the Alaska Court System.”

So why does this matter? Consider that, until the 1950s and in some states as late as the 1970s, the concept of state (vs. local) court administration was almost unheard of and local judges and other officials were only too happy to keep it that way. At the second meeting of the Conference of Chief Justices in 1950, Virginia’s then-Chief Justice Edward W. Hudgins noted that it was the title of the office that kept it from getting legislative approval. (PDF page 27, warning large PDF)

The bill for a judicial administrator was defeated largely because they used the wrong word to describe him. If they had called him an executive secretary they might have gotten it through, but to the legislators a “judicial administrator” sounded like a dictator or a snooper, and the bill was killed in committee. (Underline in original)

And thus, to this day, the state court administrator for the Commonwealth of Virginia is the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court.

State-by-State 2011 Legislative Year in Review: Virginia

August 1st, 2011

New laws affecting the courts enacted by the Virginia legislature in 2011 include the following:

HB 1534 Provides that claims, counter-claims, and cross-claims filed in actions for unlawful entry or detainer are not subject to the maximum jurisdictional limit of $15,000 applicable in general district court regardless of the purpose for which the occupant is using the premises

HB 1565 / SB 1274 Provides that restrictions on the secure remote access to court records do not apply to secure access by attorneys in good standing with the Virginia State Bar and their authorized agents and attorneys admitted to practice pro hac vice. Permits secure remote access by governmental agencies authorized by the clerk.

HB 1590 / SB 774 Increases from $15,000 to $25,000 the maximum civil jurisdictional limit of general district courts.

HB 1691 / SB 1063 ORIGINAL: Allows the establishment of servicemembers and veterans courts as specialized court dockets within the existing structure of Virginia’s court system. AS ENACTED: Provides for the program established by the Department of Veterans Services to monitor and coordinate mental health and rehabilitative services support for Virginia veterans to cooperate with localities that may establish special treatment procedures for veterans and active military servicemembers in the criminal justice system. Provides that to facilitate local involvement and flexibility in responding to the problem of crime in local communities and to effectively treat, counsel, rehabilitate, and supervise veterans and active military servicemembers who are offenders or defendants in the criminal justice system that any city, county, or combination thereof may develop, establish, and maintain policies, procedures, and treatment services for all such offenders who are convicted and sentenced for misdemeanors or felonies that are not felony acts of violence.

HB 1973 Provides that the person responsible for taking attendance when the potential jurors are assembled, and not the clerk, is responsible for verifying the identities of the jurors. Allows clerks to transmit or make available electronically to the Director of the Department of Corrections copies of the order of trial and final order for persons sentenced to the Department. Provides that if a power of attorney that has been recorded is revoked, a clerk may require that the revocation of a power of attorney be prepared as a separate instrument which shall be recorded and indexed by the clerk.

HB 2483 Provides that restrictions to secure remote access of court records do not apply to secure access by counsel or staff directly supervised by counsel.

SB 902 Permits retired justices or judges to appear as counsel in cases in courts of the Commonwealth if (i) the retired justice or judge has been retired for at least two years and is not authorized for temporary recall by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, (ii) the retired justice or judge is appearing as counsel, pro bono, for an indigent person in a civil matter, (iii) such civil matter is assigned or referred to the retired justice or judge by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar, and (iv) the retired justice or judge is not an employee, officer, or board member of such nonprofit legal aid program.

SB 1369 Clarifies that clerks may provide official certificates and certified records in digital form of any document maintained by the clerk. Confirms the clerks’ authority to perform notarial acts. Makes various changes to clerks’ duties regarding electronic filing.