This week in the east

This article may not adhere to Ballotpedia’s current neutrality policies.

May 5, 2011[edit]

This week, the state Supreme Courts were the subject of votes and conversation. In New Jersey and Florida, elected officials got political with the courts. Meanwhile in Massachusetts, the current nominee for the high court sat through a hearing with the Governor's Council. In New York the Chief Justice is increasing funding to help the least fortunate of the state's residents, while in West Virginia, temporary justices heard a case for the Supreme Court.

Florida Senate passes bill

The Florida State Senate did not pass the full bill proposed by the House of Representatives this week, but they did pass a modified version of it. While deciding against splitting the Florida Supreme Court into two separate bodies and guaranteeing that funding for the branch would remain at 2.25% of general revenue, they kept all the provisions that allow the legislature more control over the judiciary. The bill passed by the Senate mandates Senate confirmation of appointed justices, allows the legislature to reject court rules and gives the House of Representatives access to current confidential investigations of judicial misconduct. This version of the bill must be approved by the House, which should pass with no problems. Speaker of the House Dean Cannon said of the Senate passage, "It's a win. It's absolutely a win."^[1]

If, or when, the Florida House of Representatives passes the bill, it will then be up to the voters to decide whether to make it law.^[1]

To learn more about the proposal and the controversy surrounding it, read:

Supreme Weekly: Politics, budget and a nomination, April 28
Supreme Weekly: Checking in with Alabama, Connecticut, Florida and Arkansas, April 14
Plan to split Supreme Court moves ahead in Florida, April 12
Supreme Weekly: News from Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida and Hawaii, March 10

Massachusetts A nomination hearing

We mentioned last week that Barbara Lenk was appearing before the Governor's Council, to be vetted for her nomination to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Much like a federal Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, witnesses for and against the appointment testified about the nominee. A major area of contention is the judge's sexual orientation. Married and with two children, if confirmed Lenk would be the first openly gay judge to serve on the high court in the state. Members of the Governor's Council repeatedly reminded critics that this would not influence their votes. Also like a federal hearing, Lenk was mute on issues that may come before the court. When asked how she would vote on specific aspects of state law, she maintained that she would not comment on potential issues.^[2]

New Jersey A truce

After a year of the standoff between Governor Chris Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney, the two have come to a compromise over the vacant seat on the New Jersey Supreme Court. In choosing to nominate Anne Patterson to the court, instead of reappointing John Wallace, Governor Christie decided to forgo tradition. Sweeney, of the Democratic Party, took issue with this and decided to stall the Senate hearing process for Patterson's nomination. The compromise between the sides allows Patterson to stand as a nominee for a seat becoming vacant in September, which currently belongs to Roberto Rivera-Soto. The governor will appoint a different justice to succeed Wallace.^[3]

Besides both individuals demonstrating their ability to wait longer than the other, this deal symbolizes the end of a pretty meaningless standoff. During Christie's term as governor, four terms on the court will end, allowing him to fill those vacancies with nominees of his choosing. Also, Patterson is still a nominee for the court, just a different seat on it. Perhaps the authority asserted by the New Jersey Senate will remind Governor Christie that it is customary for a governor to reappoint current justices when their term expires. However, even those only vaguely familiar with the politics of the governor understand that he does not easily back away from a fight.

While giving a speech at Harvard University last week, Governor Christie referred to the justices of his state's Supreme Court "the kings and queens of legislation from the bench."^[3] This was while he was negotiating a deal regarding the future composition of that court.

In other news involving Governor Christie and the New Jersey Supreme Court, two weeks ago he mentioned his willingness to ignore an impending ruling by the court if it orders him to increase school funding. Though he refuses to explain the comment further, politicians, the media and legal scholars in the state are speculating about it. The most dominant view is that he is trying to pressure the court to rule in his favor, though other comments have not necessarily supported this view. One member of the State Senate, Raymond Lesniak, said that ignoring a court order, "...would be grounds for impeachment. We are a nation of laws, and contempt for the law by the highest elected official of the state would be a grave offense that would undermine the integrity of the office of governor."^[4]

New York More funding for indigent defense

This week Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York Court of Appeals, announced that the court system would prioritize funding to improve legal defense for the poor. Launched as a initiative of the State Office of Indigent Legal Services, the state will provide an extra $10 million. The office will work with counties to create low-cost ways to administer justice. While unveiling the program, Lippman said, "The arraignment and pretrial jailing of defendants who are not represented by counsel is a fundamental failure that can no longer be tolerated in a modern, principled society governed by the rule of law."^[5]

West Virginia Justices all sit out

In an unusual situation last week, the West Virginia Supreme Court heard a case without any actual Supreme Court justices. All five members of the court had recused themselves based on their involvement in the matter. Though the specific details of recusal are not presented, Justice Margaret Workman wrote, "Based on my personal involvement in the above-mentioned case, please be advised that I voluntarily disqualify myself from participating.”^[6]

Serving as temporary justices for the case Dianna Mae Savilla, administratrix of the estate of Linda Sue Good Kannaird, v. Speedway Superamerica LLC, dba Rich Oil Co., et al v. Eugenia Moschgat are: