State - Brennan Center for Justice



State |Issue |Forum |Proposal |Current Practice |Status |Information | |

|IL |Public funding of judicial |State Assembly |IL H.B. 7: Creates a Public Financing of Judicial |Judicial public financing passed the |IL H.B. 7: 10/21/2009 Total |IL H.B. 7 (See Amendment 2) |

| |elections; disclosure of | |Elections Task Force to assess the need for |Illinois Senate in each of the last |veto stands, no positive | |

| |campaign contributions | |developing a system of public financing for |three legislative sessions, but has |action taken; | |

| | | |judicial elections |never been called for a vote in the |8/28/2009 Governor vetoed | |

| | | | |House |bill; | |

| | | | |In 2004, groups spent a combined $9.3|6/30/2009 Sent to Governor | |

| | | | |million in 5th Judicial District in |for signature (5/31/2009 | |

| | | | |most expensive statewide Supreme |Passed both houses) | |

| | | | |Court election in national history | | |

|MN |Judicial selection |State Senate |S.F. 70, H.F. 224: Propose an amendment to the |State holds non-partisan elections |MN S.F. 70: |MN S.F. 70 |

| | | |state constitution requiring that judges initially|for Supreme Court, intermediary |5/18/2009 Regular session |MN H.F. 224 |

| | | |appointed by the Governor stand for a retention |appeals courts, and trial courts |ends without bill’s passage; | |

| | | |election at the next regularly scheduled general | |all bills carry over to 2010 | |

| | | |election held more than three years after initial | |session; | |

| | | |appointment | |3/19/2009 Referred to Senate | |

| | | | | |Committee on Rules and | |

| | | | | |Administration | |

| | | | | |MN H.F. 224: | |

| | | | | |5/18/2009 Regular session | |

| | | | | |ends without bill’s passage; | |

| | | | | |all bills carry over to 2010 | |

| | | | | |session; | |

| | | | | |1/22/2009 Referred to State | |

| | | | | |and Local Government | |

| | | | | |Operations Reform, Technology| |

| | | | | |and Elections | |

| | | | | | | |

|MO |Judicial selection |Petition submitted to the |Petition calls for replacing current system for |Under Missouri Plan, nominating |7/28/2009 Better Courts for |News Tribune (7/28/2009) |

| | |Secretary of State’s |selecting judges (Missouri Plan) with a system in |commissions nominate judges for |Missouri withdraws petition |Kansas City Star (7/13/2009) |

| | |Office by Better Courts |which the governor appoints judges to the Supreme |governor’s eventual appointment; |for technical reasons; plans | |

| | |for Missouri |Court, appellate courts, and some circuit courts; |judges stand for retention election |to resubmit | |

| | | |these judges would, in turn, be subject to Senate |after one year of service on the | | |

| | | |confirmation |bench | | |

|MO |Judicial selection |Second petition submitted |Petition to put initiative on ballot in November |Under Missouri Plan, nominating |10/7/2009 Group announces |St. Louis Post-Dispatch |

| | |by Show Me Better Courts |2010 that would allow for vote on whether there |commissions nominate judges for |shift in strategy, move |(10/7/2009) |

| | |(ostensibly same |should be direct election of judges |governor’s eventual appointment; |toward calling for direct | |

| | |organization, or affiliate| |judges stand for retention election |election of judges | |

| | |of Better Courts for | |after one year of service on the | | |

| | |Missouri; both led by | |bench | | |

| | |James Harris) | | | | |

|NV |Judicial selection |State Senate |SJR 2: Creates merit selection system for Supreme |State holds nonpartisan elections for|SJR 2: |SJR2 (as enrolled) |

| | | |Court justices and district court judges; requires|Supreme Court and trial courts |5/20/2009 Assembly approves |Bill history |

| | | |retention elections for sitting judges | |bill; bill to be put on |Las Vegas Review-Journal |

| | | | | |ballot in November 2010 |(5/20/2009) |

|NC |Judicial selection |State Assembly |H.B. 414: Creates merit selection for judicial |State holds partisan elections for |H.B. 414: |H.B. 414 |

| | | |vacancies on state Supreme Court and courts of |Supreme Court and intermediary |8/11/2009 Regular session | |

| | | |appeals |appeals courts, and nonpartisan |ends without bill’s passage; | |

| | | | |election for trial court judges |all bills carry over to 2010 | |

| | | | | |session | |

| | | | | |3/5/2009 Referred to House | |

| | | | | |Committee on Rules | |

|PA |Judicial selection |State Senate |S.B. 860: Creates, by means of constitutional |State holds partisan elections for |S.B. 860: 5/11/2009 Referred |S.B. 860 |

| | | |amendment, merit selection system for appellate |intermediate appellate courts |to Senate Judiciary Committee| |

| | | |courts in the state; provides for Appellate | | | |

| | | |Nomination Commission as well as for retention | | | |

| | | |elections | | | |

|PA |Judicial selection |State Senate |S.B. 861: Creates 14 member Appellate Court |State holds partisan elections for |S.B. 861: 5/11/2009 Referred |S.B. 861 |

| | | |Nominating Commission; specifies composition of |intermediate appellate courts |to Senate Judiciary Committee| |

| | | |commission | | | |

|TN |Judicial selection |State Legislature |S.B. 1573 (H.B. 1448): Creates new judicial |Through June 30: Judicial nominating |S.B. 1573: |H.B. 1448/S.B. 1553 |

| | | |nominating commission (effective July 1, 2009) and|commission consists of 17 members: 8 |6/25/2009 signed into law by |Related Press: Chattanooga |

| | | |takes away the mandated appointments from the |appointed by speaker of senate, 2 |governor, effective 7/1/2009 |Times Free Press (7/8/2009) |

| | | |state bar association and other various attorney |drawn from a list submitted by |Applications for new | |

| | | |groups across the state that had been integral to |Tennessee trial lawyers association, |17-member judicial nominating| |

| | | |the previous nomination system. |3 from a list submitted by Tennessee |commission accepted through | |

| | | | |association of criminal defenders, 1 |7/31/2009 | |

| | | | |non-lawyer, and 1 lawyer not | | |

| | | | |nominated by a group. | | |

|WV |Judicial selection |State Assembly |H.B. 3309: Creates a system for public funding of |State currently lacks public |H.B. 3309: 5/31/2009 Session |H.B. 3309 (introduced version)|

| | | |election campaigns for candidates for the West |financing for judicial elections; |ended without bill’s passage;| |

| | | |Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals; candidates |H.B. 3309 would add entirely new |all bills carry over to 2010 | |

| | | |would have to abide by both restrictions on |provisions to state election code |session | |

| | | |campaign contributions from private sources and | | | |

| | | |limits on campaign spending | | | |

|WV |Judicial selection |State Senate |S.B. 311: Creates a system for public funding of |State currently lacks public |S.B. 311: 5/31/2009 Session |S.B. 311 (with committee |

| | | |election campaigns for candidates for the West |financing for judicial elections |ended without bill’s passage;|substitute) |

| | | |Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals; similar to H.B.| |all bills carry over to 2010 |Related Press: The State |

| | | |3309 in that it would force candidates to abide by| |session |Journal (4/2/2009); Legal News|

| | | |restrictions on campaign contributions from | | |Online (3/9/2009) |

| | | |private sources and limits on campaign spending | | | |

|WI |Public funding of judicial |State legislature |A.B. 65: Creates public funding for judicial | |A.B. 65: |A.B. 63 |

| |elections; disclosure of | |elections |Limits can be imposed on candidate |11/5/2009 Bill passes |A.B. 65 |

| |campaign contributions | |A.B. 63: Increases disclosure requirements for |spending or campaign funds only if |legislature, goes to governor|S.B. 221 |

| | | |individuals or organizations engaged in |candidates accepts government funded |to sign bill into law |Related Press: |

| | | |electioneering communications within 2 months of |grants (See Wisconsin Election |10/21/2009 Referred to Joint |Milwaukee Journal Sentinel |

| | | |an election |Campaign Fund) |Committee on Finance; |(11/5/2009); Wisconsin Lawyer |

| | | |S.B. 221: Modifies certain public finance and |Current Wisconsin law does not |6/16/2009 Executive action |(4/2009) |

| | | |disclosure requirements; expands definition of |explicitly characterize communication|taken; 5/27/2009 Public | |

| | | |political communication in context of judicial |as political if it mentions any |hearing held | |

| | | |elections |candidate by name within 60 days of |A.B. 63: 6/16/2009 Executive | |

| | | | |election |action taken; 5/27/2009 | |

| | | | | |Public hearing held | |

| | | | | |S.B. 221: | |

| | | | | |7/2/2009 Fiscal estimate | |

| | | | | |received; 5/26/2009 Sent to | |

| | | | | |Senate Judiciary Committee | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download