Jordan Singer

Several East African courts will digitize services, with help from Microsoft

From the story:

Microsoft and Strathmore University School of Law have devised a partnership that will see key strides made in the manner East Africa’s judicial systems operate. Named the ‘Policy Innovation Series’, the program targets to digitize the region’s judicial processes, systems, and their overall functions. The policy and discussion are in line with previously set goals that purpose to digitize local systems – an activity that has been tasked to government agencies, the justice system, and the private sector.

***

The partnership will digitize case management systems, e-filing processes, document management systems and courtroom applications such as audiovisual and transcriptions processes.

The current system involves so much paperwork and manual processing, that merely filing a lawsuit can take three months. Hopefully this program will vastly improve the efficient administration of justice.

Lawsuit in Kentucky judicial race after primary winner’s sudden death

Last week, I wrote about the sudden and tragic death of Kentucky lawyer Danny Alvarez, who had won a primary election for state judge 24 hours earlier. Alvarez was set to square off against the second place winner in the fall election. After his death, the local Board of Elections ruled that the second-place finisher would be the sole candidate on the November ballot.

Now Karen Faulkner, who finished in third place by a mere seventeen votes, is challenging the decision and arguing that she should be on the ballot as well. Details here.

Burns on Taft as Chief Justice

When I began this blog in February 2017, I hoped that its growth would coincide with a renewed interest in the organizational nature of court systems, as well as a renewed appreciation for the history of court administration and management. Whether by coincidence or design, that wish has come true in at least one respect: a batch of new scholarship on Chief Justice William Howard Taft.

In addition to Jeffrey Rosen’s fine new biography of Taft and my own piece on Taft’s role in setting the stage for federal procedural rulemaking, this year has seen the publication of Kevin Burns’s lucid assessment of Taft’s chief justiceship in The Journal of Supreme Court History. Burns sets out the historical context of Taft’s time in the center chair, and beautifully illustrates Taft’s efforts to turn the federal court system into a truly centralized, autonomous branch of government. It’s a terrific introduction for those who are new to Taft’s legacy, and a useful reference for those already familiar with his career.

Burns adds his own take as well, arguing that many of Taft’s reforms were motivated by the explicit desire to increase court access for the poor. This was not merely a manifestation of the Progressive ethos of the 1920s: Burns argues that Taft understood access, in the form of faster and less expensive litigation, to help the courts as well as the litigants. More efficient case processing would lead to more confidence in the courts and less cynicism that the courts were simply the protectors of moneyed interests.

While I do not believe that access to courts was the sole–or even the primary–motivation for Taft’s reforms, the value of access was certainly consistent with his work, and Burns is right to bring it to light. Access also fits nicely with other values that motivated Taft’s administrative efforts, such as increasing the courts’ legitimacy, instilling respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, and securing greater internal control over the management of court resources. Burns’s piece is well worth the read.

On the Aaron Persky recall

Today, California voters go to the polls to determine whether Judge Aaron Persky should be recalled. Persky, of course, is known for handing an extraordinarily light sentence to Brock Turner, the Stanford swimmer convicted of three counts of sexual assault.

Turner’s conduct was unconscionable, and his sentence shockingly light. But the effort to recall Persky for that single act of sentencing is itself an awful idea that should have been put down long ago. Here is what I wrote last July:

Turner’s actions were hideous, and it is certainly understandable why a light sentence would be greeted with surprise and even outrage. And Judge Persky’s standard defense–that any challenge to his discretion would compromise judicial independence–sounds almost ridiculous in this context. But the recall effort is still a terrible idea.

Judicial recall, non-retention, and impeachment are all tempting weapons of the outraged class who seek to remove or punish a judge for a single controversial decision. California is no stranger to this sort of activity. In 1986, three state supreme court justices were successfully targeted for non-retention based on a single decision the court had rendered on the death penalty. Across the country, similar efforts have targeted judges for their decisions on everything from same-sex marriage to the disposition of property. Attacks have come both from the left and the right. The unifying theme of these efforts has been to try to wedge a judge’s entire career into a single decision. Never do they even attempt to consider or reflect upon the judge’s overall performance, skill, or temperament.

That is because efforts such as this serve one purpose: to score political points. Sometimes the goal is to drive voters to the polls in a general election to improve a political party’s overall prospects. Sometimes the goal is tactical, to create an opening on the bench that could be filled by a politically like-minded politician. Sometimes it reflects a deep misunderstanding of the judge’s ruling. Sometimes it is mere virtue signalling.

So it is here. I have seen nothing to indicate that those seeking to recall Judge Persky have ever previously expressed concern about his fitness as a judge. He has already been cleared of any abuse of discretion by a state commission. And while a comprehensive judicial performance evaluation program would provide helpful context on Judge Persky’s overall body of work, California has no such program.

One can be shocked and angered by the Brock Turner sentence and still see this recall effort as for what it is: a transparent and poorly thought-out effort to score points with a political base. Californians deserve better.

Mob justice is no justice. Will Californians preserve judicial independence (flawed as it may be) against the wrath of the mob, or will they sacrifice their judicial system to the political vultures? Today I am hopeful, if not terribly optimistic, that they will do the right thing.

Sitting Alabama justices endorse candidate in upcoming partisan primary

Here is something I have never seen before. Seven sitting and former justices of the Alabama Supreme Court publicly endorsed Chief Justice Lyn Stuart in this week’s upcoming Republican primary. Stuart replaced former Chief Justice Roy Moore after he was suspended in 2016; she is now seeking a full term.

There are a number of unusual circumstances here. Stuart stepped into a difficult position after the Moore suspension, and obviously won the support of her colleagues. And her opponent, Associate Justice Tom Parker, is a close associate of Moore. It is likely good politics to place the more moderate Stuart in the partisan general election against a Democratic challenger. Parker seems to be a mini-Moore when it comes to inciting controversy.

But this is still a highly unusual move. Judges generally stay away from political endorsements or similar activity, for fear of comprising their legitimacy as nonpartisan arbiters of the law. Moreover, the the sitting justices here chose between two colleagues on the bench. That will make for an awkward summer around the courthouse. And what if the Democratic candidate wins the general election? (Unlikely in Alabama, but we know it can happen.)

Partisan elections places judges and judicial candidates in countless compromising positions. Here is another piece of evidence to that effect.

Judicial candidate’s sudden death throws election into disarray

Last Tuesday, Danny Alvarez won the primary for his judicial race in Kentucky. As the top vote-getter, Alvarez was set to square off against the second-place finisher, Tanisha Hickerson, in the fall general election. Hickerson herself secured second place by only seventeen votes over third-place finisher Karen Faulkner.

Tragically, Alvarez died suddenly on Wednesday. While his family and friends understandably grieve, the election officials were faced with an unexpected problem: what to do about the general election. Confessing that there is no recent precedent for this situation, the Secretary of State’s Office has announced that Hickerson would be the sole candidate on the ballot in November. Given how close Hickerson and Faulkner were in the primary, it seems likely that Faulkner will ask for a re-canvassing of the votes already cast. But even if the re-canvassing does not change the result, one can only imagine that Hickerson did not want to win a judgeship in this manner.

Illinois Supreme Court orders trial judge to stop sealing all filings in high-profile murder case

Judge Vincent Gaughan, who is presiding over a high-profile case involving the police shooting death of teenager Laquan McDonald, ordered that the attorneys for both sides file all motions and briefs directly with him. Late last week, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with Gaughan’s policy, ordering the judge to stop requiring the sealing of all documents.

The media covering the case is understandably pleased with the ruling.

Former Israeli Supreme Court President defends private meetings with Prime Minister

Miriam Naor, the former President of Israel’s Supreme Court, recently gave a rare public interview in which she defended her private meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while serving on the Court. Naor maintained that she was appropriately discussing major legislation that would effect judicial branch operations. Critics argue that such meetings could compromise the integrity of a court that could eventually hear criminal charges against the Prime Minister.

This is a delicate thing. As I have noted regularly on this blog, most courts worldwide depend significantly on the other branches of their respective governments for resources and enabling legislation. It is both pragmatic and smart for the administrative head of a court system to share judicial concerns and perspectives with lawmakers. But closed-door meetings invite the perception of an improper, closer-then-arms-length relationship between the branches and their representatives.

EU releases 2018 Justice Scoreboard

The European Union has released its 2018 Justice Scoreboard, which measures the judicial systems of its member countries against several broad measures of efficiency, judicial quality, and judicial independence. Key to the scorecard is the perception of justice among each country’s citizens; Croatia and Bulgaria did especially poorly in this area.

The full report can be found here. I may have more to say about the methodology and scoring after I have had a chance to digest the entire report.

Spanish judges and prosecutors go on strike

About half of the judges and prosecutors in Spain reportedly went on strike on Tuesday, to protest government neglect of the courts. Although this headline suggests that the judges were seeking more judicial independence, the story itself indicates that the real complaint is insufficient resources:

The main association behind Tuesday’s strike, which did not specifically mention Catalonia, called for more investment and staff for the justice system.

Prosecutors have “huge workloads”, said the spokeswoman for the Association of Prosecutors, Montserrat García, adding Spain unfortunately lacked “a justice of quality”.

Justice Minister Rafael Catalá said he did not “disagree in principle” with the protesters’ demands. He stressed that some measures were already adopted in the government’s draft budget for 2018.