Category: state courts

Media bias and collateral damage to the courts

One of the primary themes of court system interdependence is resource dependence — the idea that courts rely on outsiders to provide some of the key resources they need to operate. Those resources include not only quantifiable goods like money, judges, and courthouses, but also “soft” resources like fair, accurate, and unbiased reporting about the courts and their activities. When the media fails to provide this core resource, public trust in the courts can suffer.

Two recent examples demonstrate the problem.

Continue reading “Media bias and collateral damage to the courts”

New NCSC study finds increased public trust in state courts

The National Center for State Courts’ 2024 survey on the State of State Courts shows increased public trust in state court systems. This year, 63% of survey respondents expressed trust in their state courts, the second year in a row in which the number has climbed. In addition, 54% gave their courts a positive job approval rating, up from 44% just three years ago.

This is indeed a positive trend, especially with so much political effort on the federal level being devoted to artificially depressing the courts’ legitimacy. It’s a signal that Americans can distinguish between political posturing and the important work that their state and local courts do every day.

There is more work to be done. Distressingly — but perhaps unsurprisingly — only one in four respondents believes that state courts are doing enough to help self-represented litigants navigate the court system. But overall, the trends are in the right direction, and a sign that state courts generally have earned the confidence of their communities.

Village justices elected in New York with fewer than 20 write-in votes; one winner “undecided” about whether to take job

Village courts are one of the oddest parts of New York’s notably byzantine court system. Justices are tasked with deciding cases involving traffic fines, evictions, criminal misdemeanors, and some civil matters. Unlike other judges in the state, village court justices do not need to have any formal legal training. But like all other trial judges in New York, they must be elected.

Apparently most citizens of Onandaga County did not care to vote for their village justices, and exactly zero citizens in the villages of Spafford and East Syracuse could be bothered to formally seek the position. As a result, the winner of each town’s election prevailed with fewer than 20 write in votes.

Anthony Albanese, who won the East Syracuse election with 16 write-in votes (and aided by 1,181 blank ballots), is reportedly “undecided” whether to take the position, which pays $9,000 annually.

(h/t Election Law Blog)

Arizona judicial election proposal faces court challenge

A proposal to eliminate retention elections and performance evaluations for many Arizona judges, scheduled to go to the voters in November, now faces at least one court challenge. Opponents filed suit on Friday, claiming (among other things) that the proposal’s title–the Judicial Accountability Act of 2024–is “deceptive” and “intentionally dishonest.”

Intentionally dishonest, even Orwellian, titles for legislative proposals seem a fixture of our modern politics: I’m looking at you, Inflation Reduction Act. Nevertheless, the substance of the proposal raises a number of very serious concerns, as I discuss here.

Opponents filed the case in Maricopa County Superior Court, whose judges would be directly affected by the proposal’s passage. (All Maricopa County Superior Court judges face periodic evaluations and retention elections under the current system.) Thus we see another example of what I have called “judging when the stakes are personal.” I will be curious whether there is any effort to move the case to smaller county where judges are directly elected and therefore do not have a direct stake in the outcome.

New Florida state budget will increase judicial salaries, repair courthouses, hire more court staff

Florida’s $116.5 billion state budget for the coming year will include about $741 million for the judiciary, an increase of just over $30 million from last year. The money will go to–among other things–3% salary bumps for judges and other judicial branch employees, hiring 101 new FTEs throughout the court system, and improvements to existing courthouses.

Videoconferencing as a (temporary) solution to the lack of court interpreters

This is an interesting article about the shortage of interpreters in the South Dakota court system. The state only has about 80 qualified interpreters, and only a fraction of them speak the primary languages of non-English-speaking litigants: Spanish, Arabic, Swahili, and Dinka.

The lack of qualified interpreters presents a serious access to justice issue. It can delay cases or even corrupt proceedings if the interpreter translates incorrectly. Moreover, interpreters must have familiarity with the technical language of court proceedings in order to be effective.

The article suggests one technology-based solution: bringing in interpreters remotely through videoconferencing. This approach has its own challenges, including technical glitches and lag time, but it may be the best available response at the moment. Still, it only seems a matter of time before high-quality, reliable AI could be used for simultaneous courtroom translation.

Senate passes bill to improve security for state judges

The Senate has unanimously passed the Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act, a bipartisan bill to provide additional security measures for state judges. The bill would establish a State Judicial Threat Intelligence and Resource Center, to be housed within the State Judicial Institute, which would provide technical assistance, training, and threat monitoring for state and local judges and court personnel.

The bill is supported by many key players, including the National Center for State Courts, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Judges Association, and the National Association for Court Management. The bill now moves to the House for further consideration.

 

Arizona legislature advances measure to eliminate judicial term limits

Arizona lawmakers have advanced a ballot measure that would eliminate term limits for many state judges, instead making judicial service dependent on “good behavior.” The bill would have retroactive effect, meaning that if voters pass it in November, all judges who currently face periodic retention elections would effectively be granted life terms. This would apply even to judges who lose a retention bid in the same November election.

The immediate practical impact of the measure is to severly curb the number of judicial retention elections, a mainstay in Arizona for decades. Currently, all state appellate judges, as well as Superior Court judges in Coconimo, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, face retention at the end of their set terms of office. Under the proposed measure, however, such judges would only face a retention vote upon (1) conviction of a felony or another crime involving fraud or dishonesty, (2) initiation of personal backruptcy proceedings, or (3) a determination by the Judicial Performance Review (JPR) Commission that the judge does not meet performance standards. Continue reading “Arizona legislature advances measure to eliminate judicial term limits”

State courts face staffing crisis

Pandemic shutdowns, “quiet quitting,” and other strains on workplace productivity have become increasingly common over the past few years. The courts are no exception. Law360 has a detailed article on the staffing issues that are affecting state court systems around the country. The article is paywalled, but here is a taste:

In many parts of the country, state court leaders are again raising the alarm about retirements, COVID-related resignations and a tight job market that is luring valuable staff members away. All the empty seats, along with an influx of less-experienced new hires, are slowing the gears of justice and threatening key court functions, from front-door security checks to final case filings at the clerk’s office.

Behind the scenes, administrators are scrambling, pressing lawmakers for more money to juice salaries and identify new recruiting channels, said Danielle Hirsch, managing director at the National Center for State Courts.

“In many courts around the country, vacancies are reaching crisis levels,” Hirsch told Law360 Pulse, referring to a gap between private-sector pay and salaries paid by state courts and other government employers.

“Recruiting and retaining talent is essential, and many courts are embarking on everything from working with state legislators, executive branch agencies and county boards on salaries to identifying new channels for recruiting staff,” she said.

It is probably to soon to say how this will shake out, but if staffing woes continue, it would not be surprising to see court systems start to turn to AI and other technologies to help with the workload.

Judges continue to face direct threats from the public

Three stories came across the wire today. A Washington woman was sentenced to nineteen months in prison after she left multiple voice mails for the judge threatening to “put a bullet in [his] head.” A South Bend, Indiana man was arrested at his home after making “disturbing threats” against two local judges. And a Minnesota man was charged after posting a Facebook video in which he threatened a judge and contemplated shooting up a courthouse.

Each of these individuals seems to have been angry about their own legal problems, and in some instances intoxication or mental illness may have been a factor. But they also made these threats in a modern political atmosphere that devalues judges and the court system, and makes personal attacks on judges–whether physical or verbal–almost ordinary. Just a few years ago, the vehemence with which Donald Trump attacked individual judges by name was shocking. Now that tactic has been embraced by the Democrats, who are doing everything they can to cloud the legitimacy of the courts and sully the names (and safety) of jurists who do not fall in line with the progressive agenda.

Do politicians want blood on their hands? They are not responsible for every lunatic who wants to harm a judge, but they could stop creating such fertile ground for lunacy to blossom.