 The ACTL has a strong history of standing up for
the independence of the judiciary, as part of the fulfillment of our
mandate of "maintaining and improving ...the administration of
justice."
Very early in my tenure as President of the ACTL, I have had occasion to
hear the public comments of two state chief justices on two consecutive
nights, and to speak privately with a third state chief justice the next
night, on the subject of the administration of justice. The thrust
of their comments, as described below, is that attacks on the
independence of the judiciary can come in many forms, including budget
cuts so deep that the administration of justice is imperiled.
Here are the circumstances, and each chief's comments:
On the evening before I left Boston for visits to two states in the
southwest, Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall delivered her
annual “state of the state courts” address. Mincing no
words, the Chief proclaimed that the Commonwealth’s justice system
is in or perilously near crisis mode. Having already suffered
disproportionate budget cuts in the last cycle, it now faces the threat
of significant additional cuts in a mid-cycle adjustment necessitated by
a larger than expected state deficit. (According to research done
early in 2009 for a Boston Bar Association study regarding the budget
for the state judiciary, the most recent budget cuts had resulted in
probation officers being pulled out of many schools, child and elder
abuse and custody hearings being delayed by a factor of several times,
and money for translators and court reporters being slashed to the
bone.) With more significant cuts, the Chief bluntly noted, the
justice system would simply be unable to deliver its one key
“product,” to wit: justice.
These thoughts were still weighing heavy on my mind the next night at
the University of Denver, where I attended the third annual Transparent
Courthouse Award ceremony, sponsored by the Institute for the
Advancement of American Legal Studies. The award recipient, Chief
Justice John Broderick of New Hampshire, is a Fellow of the College and
a new member of the College’s Task Force on Discovery and Civil
Justice. In his usual humble, soft spoken way, speaking entirely
extemporaneously the Chief declared that the civil justice system in our
state courts is at the tipping point. Forced by budgetary
constraints in his own state to shut down civil jury trials for a full
month in one busy session, and facing the likelihood of limiting jury
trials to four days a week in all or many sessions, he questioned
whether the civil justice system in his state could continue to deliver
on its obligation to the citizens of New Hampshire: to provide prompt
and efficient access to justice.
The next evening I spoke privately at dinner with a third state Supreme
Court Justice, whose name I shall not include since his comments were
not in a public forum. When I shared with him the sobering words
of his counterparts, he provided me with an insight that I might
otherwise have missed: At least ninety percent of most state court
budgets is comprised of personnel costs. Therefore, if a
court system is forced to cut dollars, it is cutting staff, and if it is
cutting staff, it is cutting services.
The ACTL devoted substantial efforts in recent years to supporting
well-deserved pay raises for federal judges, which, unfortunately, have
yet to come to pass. We are equally committed to the independence
of our state and province judges, and to the administration of justice
in state and province courts. Whether we act at the national
level, or through our state and province committees as may be necessary
in issues involving their courts, it is our aim to support the effort of
independent judges in dispensing justice in a fair and expedient
manner. If you are a Fellow, please log in and go to my blog below
to share your thoughts on what role the ACTL can, and should, play with
regard to those jurisdictions that may be in judicial budget
crises.
|
