Category: state courts

Kentucky’s failed attempt at judicial redistricting — and what it means for the rest of the country

I reported three months ago on a judicial redistricting bill that passed the Kentucky Senate, and seemed destined to pass. It would have reallocated judgeships within the state for the first time in 124 years. But the bill eventually died in the House.

Governing has an excellent post-mortem, noting:

Kentucky’s experience illustrates a problem that many state legislatures have faced: Even when most lawmakers recognize a need to address a judicial workload imbalance, they may not be willing to fix it if it means the communities they represent would lose judges. At least three states have tried to tackle the issue in the past few years, and none has successfully implemented a plan yet.

For anyone interested in pressures placed on legislators and the related impact on courts, the entire article is a must-read.

 

Lawyer cleared of voter fraud conviction seeks judgeship in Brooklyn

John O’Hara’s 1997 voter fraud conviction–for allegedly casting a ballot in the wrong district–was overturned just a few months ago.  O’Hara is now seeking to take on Brooklyn’s Democratic machine:

O’Hara’s slate for the Democratic primary in September includes himself and five other candidates, as part of what he is calling a “rage against the machine” to challenge the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s status quo of choosing who gets the gavel.

The party’s Judicial Screening Committee nominates a candidate through the screening process and then backs them — but the process is far from independent, and O’Hara’s slate of six is looking to take on the machine, he said.

“Because the whole so-called independent judicial screening panel is not very independent. We have nothing to do with that,” he said. “Machine-backed candidates, those are the people we are running against. We are all independent candidates.”

Wisconsin judges receive modest pay raise

The legislature-approved salary increase of 4 percent over two years was in line with Governor Scott Walker’s recommendation, but far below the 16 percent increase requested by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack.  The Wisconsin judiciary currently ranks 43rd nationwide in judicial pay.

North Carolina Court of Appeals update

Last month I reported on a fast-moving battle between North Carolina’s Republican legislature and Democratic governor over the state’s Court of Appeals. The legislature proposed a bill to shrink the size of the court in order to deny the governor additional appointments.  In response, a court of appeals judge took early retirement so that the governor could make an interim appointment before the bill was passed. Literally fifteen minutes later, the governor appointed John Arrowood, a former judge who had lost his seat in a previous election, to the Court of Appeals for a second time.

Now it appears that the saga will continue for the next two years.  Andrew Heath, a trial judge appointed last December by the previous governor, has announced that he will challenge Judge Arrowood for his seat in the 2018 election.  Stay tuned.

Texas legislature passes bill designating attacks on judges as hate crimes

The bill would make attacks on judges and police officers–whether verbal or physical–a hate crime in the state.  “Terroristic threats” could carry a two-year prison sentence, a simple assault could lead to up to 20 years in prison, and assault leading to serious bodily injury could be punishable by 99 years to life in prison.

The bill now advances to Governor Greg Abbott for signature.

Budget constraints will temporarily close Iowa’s district and juvenile courts

Iowa’s juvenile and district courts will not schedule any appearances this coming Friday, and all clerk of court and administrative offices will be closed. Court staff will instead take a mandatory, unpaid furlough day.  The move stemmed from budget cuts by the state legislature.

Courts dropping bail requirements; bail bondsmen hardest hit

To say that courts are interdependent is to say they are a part of a larger system. Courts rely on key resources–including funding, staffing, and a steady flow of cases–from external actors. And many people outside the courts rely on the court system itself for legal stability, safety, and sometimes their livelihoods.

A good example of the latter interdependence is the work of bail bondsmen. The Wall Street Journal reports today that many state courts have dropped or are radically revising the cash bail system for criminal defendants that has been in place since the late 1800s. With fewer defendants needing to post bail, there has been less of a need for bail bonds, and the bail bond industry is suffering more than at any point in the last four decades.

A very interesting story on a complex interdependency, and a good reminder as to why there are few easy, painless fixes in interdependent systems.

(Story link may require a subscription.)

Insurance claims analyst with no legal education elected as judge in Pennsylvania

Brian Tupper, a claims analyst with Berkshire Hathaway, will take the bench in Wilkes-Barre. The seat was held by Tupper’s father until his recent retirement.  The local story notes: “Because he is not a law graduate, Tupper prepared for his new job by completing a four week certification course with the Justified Judicial System of Pennsylvania in June 2016.”

Oh, boy.

Courts try new tactics to address those who skip jury duty

The Oregonian has an interesting article on the efforts of state and federal courts to crack down on citizens not appearing for jury duty.  The story nicely describes the range of tactics in play, from jury coordinators and James Taylor concert videos to being individually summoned and grilled by an irritated judge.

Jury trials are central to the American justice system, and citizens who serve on a jury almost always walk away with a better appreciation for the court system and their own civic responsibilities.

Six state chief justices join forces to combat opioid epidemic

The Chief Justices of six states — Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee — recently signed a charter to support a Regional Opioid Initiative already in place in those states.  The courts’ commitment to the initiative recognizes that the epidemic crosses state borders and is most usefully addressed with a high level of cross-state cooperation.  It also recognizes the key role of state judiciaries in combatting the epidemic.