Hawaii: bills in House/Senate would change state supreme court’s jurisdiction back to old “deflector” system; force Supreme Court to decide some cases in 15 days

Hawaii’s Supreme Court and Intermediate Court of Appeals had, for decades, operated using a “deflector” system: appeals were filed with the Supreme Court which then either kept the case or “deflected” it down to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The system ended in 2006 and now appeals can be filed directly with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, but some legislators want a return to the old system and add a 15 day deadline for others.

HB 2191 / SB 3040 effectively repeal the 2006 changes and re-establish the deflector system.

HB 2194 / SB 3019 would add to the Supreme Court’s docket as well. The bills provide that a court of inferior jurisdiction may certify to the Hawaii Supreme Court a question or proposition of law on which the court of inferior jurisdiction seeks instruction for the proper decision of a remanded case. Finally they require the Supreme Court to answer the question within 15 calendar days.

Hawaii: hearing today on plans to change judicial selection in state; bills call for Senate re-confirmation at end of judicial terms in office

The Hawaii Senate’s Judiciary and Labor committee has scheduled a hearing today on plans to change the way the state selects its judges.

As previously discussed here there are two main proposals in the Senate.

Hawaii’s current system is made up of 2 elements:

  • Election for initial terms: Currently a list of nominees is sent by the Judicial Selection Commission to the governor (supreme court, intermediate appellate court, circuit court) or chief justice (district court) to select from. After a nominee is chosen he or she is subject to senate confirmation.
  • Additional terms: Currently judges seeking to remain in office go back before the Judicial Selection Commission for evaluation and re-approval; neither the governor nor the chief justice nor the senate is involved.

SB 673 Provides that the Senate must reconfirm any judge or justice for additional terms. In addition, it would change the default deadlines for confirmation; currently there is a default approval if the senate fails to act for the state’s higher courts (supreme, intermediate appellate, circuit) but default rejection for the lowest court (district).

SB 328 Provides that the Senate must reconfirm any judge or justice for additional terms.

Hawaii: stage set for new attempts to change merit/commission selection of judges in state; focus appears to be on reconfirmation by Senate

Last year I noted a flurry of activity in Hawaii in the area of judicial selection. 2017 looks to be picking up where 2016 left off.

Hawaii’s current system is made up of 2 elements:

  • Election for initial terms: Currently a list of nominees is sent by the Judicial Selection Commission to the governor (supreme court, intermediate appellate court, circuit court) or chief justice (district court) to select from. After a nominee is chosen he or she is subject to senate confirmation.
  • Additional terms: Currently judges seeking to remain in office go back before the Judicial Selection Commission for evaluation and re-approval; neither the governor nor the chief justice nor the senate is involved.

HB 1 / SB 673 Provides that the Senate must reconfirm any judge or justice for additional terms. In addition, it would change the default deadlines for confirmation; currently there is a default approval if the senate fails to act for the state’s higher courts (supreme, intermediate appellate, circuit) but default rejection for the lowest court (district). HB 1 also gives the legislature more time (90 days, up from 30) to consider confirmations.

SB 328 Provides that the Senate must reconfirm any judge or justice for additional terms.

 

 

 

Hawaii: one change to merit/commission selection system passed Senate unanimously, other proposed changes stalled

Efforts to make major changes to Hawaii’s merit/commission selection system for judges appear to be stalling, while a technical amendment regarding the timing cleared the state’s Senate unanimously.

SB 2498: when does the nomination and default confirmation clock(s) start?

Hawaii’s judicial selection system is very time-focused. Under the state constitution the state’s Judicial Selection Commission sends a list to the governor (higher courts) or chief justice (district court) to select from. This starts a series of timed events.

  1. Upon presentation of the list, the governor or chief justice must make an appointment within 30 days. If they fail to do so, the judicial selection commission makes the pick.
  2. Upon selection by the governor, chief justice, or commission, the senate has 30 days to confirm. If the senate fails to reject any appointment within 30 days, “it shall be deemed to have given its consent to such appointment.”

In 2012 this became an issue when the governor announced at a press conference 5 days before the 30 day deadline his pick for the state’s supreme court but did not formally send the name to the senate until a week later, 2 days after the deadline. The state’s attorney general found that the 30 day window had been satisfied at the press conference.

SB 2498 would clarify the 30-day deadline for confirmation requires written notice to the senate, not just press conferences. Moreover, the deadline would start with the “senate’s receipt of written notice of the appointment.”

SB 2498 was approved 24-0 by the Senate yesterday (March 9) and now goes to the House.

SB 2239: end merit/commission select and replace with elections (initial term) and senate confirmation (additional terms)

SB 2239 would simply ends merit selection of judges and replace it with elections for their initial 6-year terms (a reduction from the current 10 years for higher courts). Rather than running again at the end of the term, the judge would be subject to confirmation by the senate for subsequent judicial terms. After broad based opposition to the plan a vote set for February in the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee was deferred until March 2 and then deferred indefinitely.

SB 2420: senate must reconfirm judges at end of their term; default reconfirmation in 90 days

Unlike SB 2239 which would have ended the state’s merit/commission based selection system, SB 2420 keeps the system but alters how judges are retained in office. Currently at the end of a term a judge goes back before the Judicial Selection Commission who must reapprove the judge. There is no role for either the governor or the senate.

SB 2420 would require judges must be reapproved by commission and confirmed by senate. Moreover, it keeps the idea of default confirmation in place, but gives the senate 90 days (rather than 30 days) for default reconfirmation.

SB 2420 was approved by the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee in February. However, a Senate floor amendment set the effective date for the constitutional amendment as January 7, 2059. Typically setting such dates indicates the legislature is delaying or stalling a bill for possible study or outright defeat.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: GA House approves modified bill; Mississippi bill to ban sharia in divorce cases dies

The latest iterations of efforts to ban state courts from using foreign or international law in general, and sharia law in particular, appear to be stalling in most states. Since last month’s update there have been three pieces of activity, within only 1 bill moving.

Georgia: The House yesterday passed a heavily amended version of HB 171. As introduced, the bill provided

Any tribunal ruling shall be void and unenforceable if the tribunal bases its ruling in whole or in part on any foreign law that would deny the parties the rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution or the Georgia Constitution.

As amended the bill adds to an existing list of items (O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1) to be considered by a court when considering the issue of venue and the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall give consideration to the following factors

whether the forum outside of this state provides for impartial tribunals and procedures that are consonant to the requirements of due process of law as required by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Georgia.

The bill was approved 165-0.

In Mississippi, which already enacted a foreign law ban in 2015, legislators attempted to enhance the existing law. SB 2400 would have allowed courts to award attorney’s fees to any party opposing recognition or enforcement of foreign law. SB 2595 specifically targeted the use of sharia law in divorce and child custody cases. Both bills died in committee.

Finally, a bill was introduced in Missouri (HB 2507) that dealt with the subject as well.

Full list of bills below the fold.

Continue reading Bans on court use of sharia/international law: GA House approves modified bill; Mississippi bill to ban sharia in divorce cases dies

Hawaii: vote on bill for election of judges put on hold until March 2, but Senate reconfirmation advances out of committee

The Hawaii Senate Judiciary and Labor committee met yesterday to take up several bills that would change the state’s merit/commission based system of appointment of judges. While a plan to move towards elections met with fierce opposition (per media reports) and a decision on that bill was delayed, other proposals did advance.

As a reminder Hawaii’s current system is made up of 2 elements:

  • Election for initial terms: Currently a list of nominees is sent by the Judicial Selection Commission to the governor (supreme court, intermediate appellate court, circuit court) or chief justice (district court) to select from. After a nominee is chosen he or she is subject to senate confirmation.
  • Additional terms: currently judges seeking to remain in office go back before the Judicial Selection Commission for evaluation and re-approval; neither the governor nor the chief justice nor the senate is involved.

Approved

  • SB 2238 requires the judiciary, office of elections, and campaign spending commission to study appropriate methods of implementing a judicial election system in the state and submit a written report, including proposed legislation, to the legislature.
  • SB 2420 a constitutional amendment that retains merit selection of judges but provides judges seeking additional terms in office must be reapproved by the judicial selection commission and reconfirmed by the senate (currently only need be reapproved by judicial selection commission). Moreover the plan provides that if the senate fails to act within 90 days, the judge is returned to office by default.
  • SB 2498 a constitutional amendment that addresses the issue of Senate confirmation. The bill requires written notice of an appointment to the senate for advice and consent concurrent with the governor, judicial selection commission, or chief justice’s making of the appointment. The amendment clarifies that the senate’s thirty-day period to reject a judicial appointment begins on the senate’s receipt of written notice of the governor’s, chief justice’s, or judicial selection commission’s appointment.

Delayed until March 2

  • SB 2239 a constitutional amendment that ends merit selection of judges. Instead, justices and judges would be initially elected to serve six-year terms and be subject to the consent of the senate for subsequent judicial terms.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: reintroduced or active in 12 states; bill moves in SC; threat of impeachment against judges in WV

As I noted last July 2015 saw some 32 pieces of legislation introduced in 17 states to ban or limit the use by state courts of sharia or foreign/international law. 2016 looks to pick up where 2015 left off with a raft of new legislation introduced in 12 states. Of note:

Continued reference to sharia in particular

Notable regarding many of these bills is the continued focus on specifically banning the use by state courts of sharia law (South Carolina HB 3521 as introduced; Missouri HJR 69). The specific targeting of sharia was held as unconstitutional in a decision by the Tenth Circuit in 2012 a sharia-specific constitutional amendment approved by Oklahoma voters in 2010. Perhaps as a result the version adopted by the South Carolina House last week eliminated the word “sharia”. That ruling has not stopped Missouri’s proposal, which is practically a verbatim copy of the Oklahoma 2010 proposal struck down by the Tenth Circuit.

Missouri HJR 69 of 2016

The courts provided for in this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including but not limited to cases of first impression.

Oklahoma HJR 1056 of 2010

The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law , in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

Threat of impeachment

Also of note is a West Virginia version of this bill which threatens impeachment for any judge who violates the provision (“Any decision or ratification of a private agreement that is determined, on the merits, by a judge in this state who relies on any body of religious sectarian law or foreign law is void, is appealable error and is grounds for impeachment and removal from office.”)

List of proposals and their current status below the fold.

Continue reading Bans on court use of sharia/international law: reintroduced or active in 12 states; bill moves in SC; threat of impeachment against judges in WV

Hawaii: bills would end merit/commission selection of judges in state, replace with elections and senate confirmations; for first time has Democrats as co-sponsors

Over the last several years there have been no sustained efforts to alter Hawaii’s merit/commission selection system for selecting judges. The two proposals that were introduced were done so by the Senate’s only Republican member (Sen. Sam Slom). In 2016, however, several Democratic members of the Hawaii Senate want to see an end to merit/commission selection in the state.

First, some background

SB 423 of 2005 Provided for elections for the state’s supreme court only. The bill was introduced by the Senate’s only Republican member (Slom). The identical SB 798 of 2013 was again introduced by the Senate’s only Republican member (Slom). Neither bill was ever taken up in committee.

There the matter lay until this year with HB 2139 of 2016 and the identical SB 2239 of 2016. Both bills begin by citing to a “December 2013 article for the National Center for State Courts” regarding trends in judicial selection. In full disclosure, that article was written by me.

The bills go on to eliminate the state’s merit/commission based system and replace it with a two step approach:

Election for initial terms: Currently a list of nominees is sent by the Judicial Selection Commission to the governor (supreme court, intermediate appellate court, circuit court) or chief justice (district court) to select from. After a nominee is chosen he or she is subject to senate confirmation.

HB 2139 and SB 2239 replace this system with direct elections. (“The justices and judges shall be elected by the qualified voters of this State at a general election as provided by law.”)

Additional terms: currently judges seeking to remain in office go back before the Judicial Selection Commission for evaluation and re-approval; neither the governor nor the chief justice nor the senate is involved. (“If the judicial selection commission determines that the justice or judge should be retained in office, the commission shall renew the term of office of the justice or judge for the period provided by this section or by law.”)

HB 2139 and SB 2239 would not require judges run for re-election again; instead they would have to come before the senate who “shall hold a public hearing and vote to consent or not consent to retention of each petitioning justice or judge.”

Terms in office: in addition to change the method of selection/retention, the bills cut judge’s terms in office. Currently judges of the state’s top courts serve for 10 year terms; district court terms are set by statute at six years.

The bills would set the term of office for all judges at six years.

HB 2139 is pending in the House Judiciary Committee. SB 2339 is pending in the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee.

 

Maryland hearing on usage and authorization for court facility dogs: bills in 6 other states pending/enacted recently

Over the last several years courts have grappled with when, and how, to allow the use of court facility dogs to assist witnesses and victims in giving testimony. A hearing set for today in Maryland’s Senate will examine the subject, while 6 other states have in the 2015/2016 legislative cycle either debated or in the case of Arkansas enacted statutes regarding facility dog usage.

Arizona: criminal cases, victim under 18, jury instruction required

HB 2375 of 2016 provides a court shall afford a victim who is under eighteen years of age the opportunity to have a facility dog accompany the victim while testifying in court. The court would be obligated to inform the jury “the facility dog is a trained animal, is not a pet owned by the victim witness and that the presence of the facility dog may not be interpreted as reflecting on the truthfulness of the testimony that is offered.”

HB 2375 cleared the House Judiciary Committee on January 20 and the House Rules Committee on January 25.

Arkansas: criminal cases, witness under 18, “appropriate jury instructions” required

HB 1855 of 2015 provided, subject to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, Arkansas Rules of Evidence, or other rule of the Supreme Court, if requested by either party in a criminal trial or hearing and if a certified facility dog is available within the jurisdiction of the judicial district in which the criminal case is being adjudicated, a child witness of the party shall be afforded the opportunity to have a certified facility dog accompany him or her while testifying in court. “In a criminal trial involving a jury in which the certified facility dog is utilized, the court shall present appropriate jury instructions that are designed to prevent prejudice for or against any party.”

HB 1855 was enacted as Act 957 of the 2015 session.

Connecticut: criminal cases, violent crime victim, nothing on jury instructions

HB 5364 of 2015 provided that that in any criminal prosecution involving an alleged violent crime and testimony from a victim of such crime, such victim shall be permitted to be accompanied by a therapy dog while testifying in the criminal prosecution, provided such dog is not visible to the jury.

HB 5364 was filed in 2015 but never advanced out of committee.

Hawaii: any “judicial proceeding”, “vulnerable witness”, jury instructions “to the extent necessary”

HB 1668 of 2016 and the identical SB 2112 provide a court may permit the use of a facility dog involving the testimony of a vulnerable witness if the court determines that there is a compelling necessity for the use of a facility dog to facilitate the testimony of the vulnerable witness. “To the extent necessary, the court may impose restrictions, or instructions to the jury, regarding the presence of the facility dog during the proceedings.”

Both bills are pending in their respective Judiciary Committees.

Maryland: criminal proceedings, child witness, nothing on jury instructions

SB 55 of 2016 provides a court may allow a facility dog or therapy dog to accompany a child witness. There is no mention of jury instructions.

SB 55 is pending before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and it set for a hearing today (January 26).

New York: criminal proceedings, “vulnerable witness”, lengthy jury instruction

AB 389 of 2015 and the identical SB 231 provide that a court shall permit the use of a facility dog when, in a criminal proceeding involving the testimony of a vulnerable witness, the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that it is likely that such witness will be unable to effectively communicate if required to testify without the presence of such facility dog and that the presence of such facility dog will facilitate such testimony. Both bills include a lengthy jury instruction statement

A jury instruction shall be given both before and after the appearance of the facility dog with the witness and at the conclusion of the trial. Such instruction shall include that the dog is a highly trained professional who is properly referred to as a “courthouse facility dog.” Included in this shall be the emphasis that the dog is not a pet, is not owned by the witness and is equally available to both the prosecution and defense under certain circumstances. Such instruction shall include that the presence of the facility dog is in no way to be interpreted as reflecting on the truthfulness of the testimony offered. Such instruction shall also include that the presence of the dog is a reasonable accommodation to the witness in allowing them to fulfill the obligation of testifying in a court of law.

Neither bill advanced out of committee in the 2015 session and were carried over into the 2016 session.

Tennessee: any civil or criminal proceeding, witness fitting criteria, nothing on jury instructions

HB 1987 of 2016 and the identical SB 1618 provide a court may allow the use of a courthouse facility dog for any civil or criminal proceeding for a witness. The court, in deciding on whether to permit the usage, may consider

  1. The age of the witness
  2. The nature of the witness’s relationship to the events giving rise to the proceeding
  3. Whether the witness suffers from any disability
  4. The rights of the parties to the proceeding
  5. Any other factors that the court deems relevant in facilitating the effective communication of information by the witness and protecting the rights of the parties to the proceeding.

HB 1987 has been filed but not yet assigned to a committee. SB 1618 is in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Across country, state legislatures consider altering number of nominees judicial nominating commissions must release

One particular aspect of judicial selection legislatures have had a keen interest has been the number of names that advance through judicial nominating commissions (JNCs). 2016 looks to be no exception; in Missouri SJR 30 prefiled for the new year would eliminate the restriction that the state’s JNCs send only three names to the governor. Moreover, an examination of legislation over the last two decades shows a marked uptick in interest outside of Missouri over the last several years.

Alaska

The state’s constitution provides the state’s JNC send “two or more persons” to the governor when a vacancy occurs in either the Supreme or Superior Court; statutes require “two or more persons” for Court of Appeals (Alaska Stat. § 22.07.070) and District Court (§ 22.15.170) vacancies. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Arizona

The state’s constitution provides that if the vacancy is on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or Superior Court (in counties that use a commission system) the governor is to receive the names of “not less than three persons.” Several efforts have been made to amend this provision. SCR 1038 of 2005 would have increased this to 6 names for appellate vacancies and 7 for Superior Courts. In 2011 proposals were submitted (SCR 1040, SCR 1046, and SCR 1049) that would have increased the list to 6 names for appellate vacancies and 7 for Superior Courts.

The proposal that eventually made it on the ballot was SCR 1001 of 2011: 8 names for both trial and appellate vacancies. SCR 1001 also included several other changes to give governors more power over the JNCs. When it appeared on the 2012 ballot as Proposition 115 it received only a 27% yes vote. Undaunted by the loss, the legislature in 2013 passed HB 2600. Rather than amend the constitution, the legislature tried to force by statute the JNCs to provide governors “the names of at least five persons” for trial and appellate vacancies. In September 2013 the state’s supreme court held that law unconstitutional.

Colorado

The state’s constitution provides the JNCs in the state are to provide “a list of three nominees for the supreme court and any intermediate appellate court, and… a list of two or three nominees for all other courts of record…” No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Connecticut

Connecticut adopted a commission based system in 1986: governors nominate from a list provided by the state’s judicial selection commission but the constitution is silent as to the number. State law (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a) provides that the commission is to provide the governor a list of all “qualified candidates”. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Florida

The state adopted a merit/commission system in 1972 for the state’s trial and appellate courts. The original provision required the JNCs to submit a list of “not fewer than three persons”. For the appellate courts, this was amended in 1976 to precisely 3 (“one of three persons nominated”). For trial courts, commission appointment was eliminated, but was made optional under a 1998 amendment that allowed voters to opt in for each county in the 2000 election. Under the 1998 trial court opt-in provision “not fewer than three” names were to go to the governor. No county opted into this system for its trial courts.

For the appellate courts, several efforts were made in the 1990s to change the “not fewer than three persons” language. The first was to change it to precisely “three persons” (SJR 18 of 1992). Eventually the legislature settled on “Not fewer than three persons nor more than six persons” (HJR 1415 and SJR 978 of 1996). The expansion to 3-6 names was approved by voters as Amendment 3 in November 1996.

By 2000 another round of efforts were made to expand the list, this time by dropping any numerical requirements and providing the JNCs were to send a list of all applicants (HB 923 of 2000) or a list of all persons eligible to fill the vacancy (HB 627, HB 827, SB 1794, and SB 1860 of 2001). None of the proposals advanced and the issue has appeared to have remained dormant since.

Hawaii

The state adopted a commission based appointment system in the 1978. Originally the commission was required to submit a “list of not less than six nominees” for each vacancy in the state’s appellate and trial courts. A 1994 amendment (SB 2294) modified this to “a list of not less than four, and not more than six” for the Supreme, Intermediate Appellate, and Circuit Courts; District Courts remained at “not less than six nominees”.

There the matter lay for over a decade until a 2005 effort (SB 1166) would have provided the lists for all courts were to be made up of “not less than three.” In 2007 a measure to change the threshold down to 3-5 names for all courts was introduced. SB 948 was approved by the full Senate and advanced through the House Judiciary Committee before ultimately dying when the legislature adjourned.

Indiana

The state’s constitution provides the judicial nominating commission must submit “a list of three nominees” to the governor for vacancies on the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Iowa

The state’s constitution provides that the judicial nominating commission is to provide “three nominees” for Supreme Court vacancies and “two nominees” for District Courts; a statute (Iowa Code § 46.14A) with respect to the Court of Appeals repeats the “three nominees” language.

With respect to the constitutional provision, there were several efforts (SJR 2006 of 2010; SJR 6 and SJR 7 of 2011) to allow the governor to reject the list of three names provided for Supreme Court vacancies and requiring the commission submit a list of three new names. None advanced.

With respect to the Court of Appeals, the statute creating the court in 1976 required the nominating commission provide the governor a list of 3 names for vacancies on that court (former § 46.15). That number was expanded to five when the state’s judiciary was reorganized in 1983. The number was reverted back to 3 when portions of section Iowa Code § 46.15 were recodified as § 46.14A (SF 381 of 2007).

Kansas

The state’s constitution specifies that with respect to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court Nominating Commission is to provide the governor a list of “three persons.” The state’s Court of Appeals had until 2013 also be selected in like fashion via a statutory system (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 20-3005) that required a list of “three nominees”. In addition District Courts in those judicial districts that have opted into the commission-select system have their vacancies filled from a list of “not less than two nor more than three persons for each office which is vacant” (§ 20-2909).

With respect to the Supreme Court, there was an effort to allow governors to reject the list of 3 names and be provided a second list of 3 new names for a total of 6 (HCR 5005 of 2009) or to simply have the commission submit 6 names on the first list (SCR 1619 of 2007 & SCR 1612 of 2009). Another (HCR 5027 of 2013) would have provided the commission submit all qualified persons to the governor.

With respect to the Court of Appeals no effort was made to expand the list the commission was required to provide, the commission system was simply eliminated in 2013 and the governor permitted to appoint any qualified person subject to senate confirmation.

With respect to the District Courts, no recent effort appears to have been made to modify the current practice of 2-3 names.

Missouri

Since adoption of its commission-based plan the Missouri constitution has specified that commissions are to submit “three persons” to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and specified Circuit Courts. Although a 1976 constitutional revision moved the location of the language (from Art. V, Sec. 29(a) to the new Art. V, Sec 25(a)) the 3-persons provision was unchanged.

Much of the focus in this area has been for a 4/8 or 5/10 plan. Under the proposals the initial list submitted to the governor would be made up of 4 or 5 names (vs. the current 3). The governor would be allowed to reject the list and ask for a new one, for a total of 8 or 10 nominees.

The 4/8 plan appeared in HJR 19 of 2009 (as introduced) and SJR 17 of 2011.

The 5/10 provision appeared in HJR 49 of 2008, HJR 10 of 2009 (as amended), SJR 9 of 2009, HJR 58 of 2010, HJR 18 of 2011, and HJR 44 of 2012. A plan that would allow for only a single list of 5 names was considered as HJR 52 of 2008.

The latest iteration prefiled for the 2016 session (SJR 30) would simply eliminate the 3-name provision.

Nebraska

The state’s constitution provides vacancies in the state’s Supreme and District Courts must be filed from a list of “of at least two nominees” presented to the governor. Various statutes extend this practice to the Court of Appeals (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1101), County Courts (§ 24-820) and Juvenile Courts (§ 43-2,114) and incorporate the constitutional provision by reference. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

New Mexico

New Mexico uses a unique two-step process for judicial selection. When a vacancy occurs one of three JNCs (appellate judges, district court judges, or metropolitan court judges commissions) meets and submits to the governor a list of all “persons qualified for judicial office and recommended for appointment”. The governor can then ask for a second list of names. Whoever is picked, however, must then face off in partisan elections at the next general election.

While the constitution does not provide for a minimum or maximum number of names, one bill did seek to put such a provision in place after a single name was submitted in 2006 to the state’s governor to fill a District Court vacancy and no additional names sent when he asked for a second list. SB 1075 of 2007 would have required JNCs provide at least two names per vacancy. The bill never proceeded out of committee.

New York

New York’s constitution since 1977 requires vacancies for the state’s top court (called the Court of Appeals) be filled via a commission on judicial nomination, but gives the legislature power to set the organization and procedure of the commission. State law on this subject (Judiciary Law § 63) specifies the list to fill associate judgeship must contain “at least three persons and not more than seven persons.” Interestingly, the chief judgeship must be made up of at least 7 persons (“In recognition of the unique responsibilities of the chief judge of the court of appeals for policies of judicial administration, for a vacancy in the office of chief judge the commission shall recommend to the governor seven persons.”)

In 1993 an effort (AB 916) was made to raise the 7-name limit for chief judge to 11 names and automatically put all serving associate judges on that list. The bill was reintroduced for several sessions thereafter (AB 3699 of 1995 & AB 2148 of 1997).

In 2009 an attempt was made to eliminate the numerical restrictions and require the commission send all qualified names to the governor. AB 3866 of that year failed to advance but was reintroduced in the 2011 session as AB 309.

Also in 2009 an attempt was made to increase the limits from 3-7 to 5-9 (associate judge) and from 7 to 9 (chief judge). It too failed to advance.

Oklahoma

The state’s constitution provides that vacancies in the state’s two top courts (Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals) are to be filled from a list of “three (3) nominees” submitted to the governor. A statute (Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 30.17) extends this practice to the state’s intermediate appellate court (Court of Civil Appeals). No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Rhode Island

In 1994 the state’s constitution was amended to provide vacancies in the Supreme Court were to be filled from a list provided by a judicial nominating commission to be established by the legislature and confirmed by the House and Senate. Lower court vacancies (Superior, Family, and District) were also to be filled by commission-based appointment but required only Senate confirmation. A statute (R.I. Gen. Laws 8-16.1-6) provides that the list provided by the commission is to be made up of between 3-5 names.

From 2008 to 2015 governors were not limited to just those 3-5 names. Under laws enacted annually from 2008 to 2014 (HB 7829 of 2008, HB 5567 of 2009, SB 2645 of 2010, SB 686 of 2011, HB 8043 of 2012, SB 471 of 2013, and HB 8006 of 2014) anyone vetted and approved by the JNC for a judgeship would be eligible for any other judgeship of the same court for 5 years. The program lapsed on July 1, 2015 when HB 6307 failed to be enacted to give the program yet another 1-year extension.

South Carolina

South Carolina is one of only two states (Virginia is the other) in which the legislature elects judges with no involvement by the governor. In 1997 the state’s constitution was amended to require the creation of a “Judicial Merit Selection Commission” to recommend nominees to the legislature for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, and Family Court. The commission’s membership and processes were left up to the legislature to set. The law enacted to implement the constitutional provision (S.C. Code Ann. § 2-19-80) requires the release by the commission of “the three candidates whom it considers best qualified.”

There have been over two dozen pieces of legislation to alter the number of names released by the commission. Almost all focused on the release of all qualified names, with “qualified” meaning either a) that the individual meets the minimum requirements for the position (age, attorney, etc.) or b) the person was “qualified” to serve in the opinion of the commission.

The practice for the better part of a decade was for the House to pass the “all qualified names” provision and for the Senate to either reject it or amend it to “no more than 3 qualified names” but with a provision that more than 3 names could be sent if two-thirds of the commission approved. This House/Senate split occurred in the 2003/2004 (HB 4734), 2005/2006 (HB 2079), and 2007/2008 (HB 3463 & SB 40) sessions. The Senate passed its own standalone version (3 names, more if two-thirds of commission approved) in 2007 (SB 40) that the House failed to act on.

The matter lay dormant until the 2015/2016 session when again the House passed an “all qualified” names bill (HB 3979); the Senate has yet to act on the legislation.

South Dakota

The state’s constitution was amended in 1980 to provide that vacancies in the Supreme Court are to be filled from a list of “two or more persons” nominated by the judicial qualifications commission. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Utah

The state’s constitution was amended in 1985 to provide for a commission-system with senate confirmation for all courts of record (Supreme, Court of Appeals, District and Juvenile). The list given to the governor for these courts must consist “of at least three nominees.” A statutory change in 2008 (SB 72) brought the state’s other courts (Justice) into a commission system. The Justice Court Commission was required to submit “at least two names to the appointing authority.”

For the courts of record, a 1995 statute (former Utah Code § 20A-12-105, recodified in 2008 as § 78A-10-104) provided the appellate commission was to provide the governor at least 5 names for each vacancy while trial court commissions were to provide at least 3 names. In 2010 this was further amended (SB 289) to provide that the appellate court commission is to submit 7 names to the governor, while the trial court commissions are to send 5. SB 108 of the same year had similar provisions. A 1998 effort (SJR 3) would have allowed the governor to reject a list of names from the commission and request a new list. There was no limit to the number of rejections.

For the Justice Courts, a 2015 proposal (SB 141) increased the number of names from “at least two” to “at least three” for the local appointing authority to choose from. The bill was signed into law in March of this year.

Vermont

The state’s constitution provides the governor is to nominate Supreme Court and other judges (other than Probate judges) from a list provided by a judicial nominating body to be created by the legislature. A state statute (4 VSA 602) provided that the Judicial Nominating Board is to submit all “candidates” to the governor for consideration; this was amended in 2009 (HB 470) to “qualified candidates”. Other than the 2009 amendment, no recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Wyoming

The state’s constitution as amended in 1972 provides for a judicial nominating commission for the supreme court, district courts and any other courts the legislature decides. The commission is to give the governor “a list of three nominees” for vacancies. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.