Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
State ballot measures relating to the judiciary, 2012
Alabama
Certified
The Alabama Etowah County Court Costs Amendment (2012) was a Legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposed by Alabama State Senator Phil Williams which appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot only in Etowah County, AL. The measure was approved.[1]
The question on the ballot was:
| “ | Relating to Etowah County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to authorize the Legislature, by local or general act, to fix, regulate, and alter the costs and charges of court and to ratify and confirm any local law authorizing any additional court costs enacted prior to the adoption of this amendment.[2] | ” |
The Alabama Marengo County Judge of Probate Amendment (2012) was a Legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposed by Alabama State Senator Bobby Singleton which appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot only in Marengo County, AL. The measure was approved.[3]
The question on the ballot was:
| “ | Relating to Marengo County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that the judge of probate shall be compensated based on the population of the county as provided by general law instead of at 90 percent of the rate paid a district judge in the county.[2] | ” |
The Alabama Marion County Court Costs Amendment (2012) was a Legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposed by Alabama State Senator Roger Bedford which appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot only in Marion County, AL. The measure was approved.[4]
The question on the ballot was:
| “ | To propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to authorize the Legislature, by local or general act, to fix, regulate, and alter the costs and charges of court in Marion County.[2] | ” |
The Alabama Winston County Judge of Probate Amendment (2012) was a Legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposed by Alabama State Representative Richard Baughn which appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot only in Winston County, AL. The measure was approved.[5]
The question on the ballot was:
| “ | Relating to Winston County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide for the judge of probate to be compensated on a salary basis and to provide for the onestop issuance of motor vehicle license plates by the judge of probate.[2] | ” |
Arizona
Certified
The Arizona Judicial Selection Amendment, Proposition 115 (2012) was a Legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposed by Arizona State Senate which appeared on the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot. The measure was defeated.
The measure sought to make a number of changes to the state judicial system, including:
- Increasing the terms of judges from six to eight years.
- Increasing the retirement age from 70 to 75.
- Allowing the State Bar of Arizona to appoint one of five attorneys to the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. (Prior to 2012, the governor appointed five attorneys that were vetted by the bar association.)
- Allowing the Governor to pick up to eight finalists for the state Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of Pima and Maricopa County positions. (At the time of the 2012 election, special screening panels reviewed potential judges for those courts, and the governor could pick at least three finalists.)
The ballot question was:[6]
| “ | A Concurrent Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article VI, Sections 4, 12, 20, 36, 37, 39, 41 and 42, Constitution of Arizona, relating to the Judicial Department[2] | ” |
Florida
Certified
Florida Supreme Court, Amendment 5 (2012) was a Legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposed by the Florida House of Representatives that appeared on the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot. The measure was defeated.
The measure sought to make a number of changes to the Florida Supreme Court, including:[7][8]
- Adding three justices to the seven-member court.
- Creating two divisions - civil and criminal - within the high court with five justices each.
- Assigning the governor to appoint the chief justices for each division and two alternate chief justices of the entire court.
- Requiring appointees to be confirmed by the Senate.
- Granting the House access to investigative files of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission.
- Setting aside at least 2.25 percent of the state's general revenue to fund the judicial branch.
The measure was supported by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and opposed by some judges and the Florida Bar.[9]
The official ballot text read as follows:[10]
| “ | CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE V, SECTIONS 2, 11, AND 12 STATE COURTS.—Proposing a revision of Article V of the State Constitution relating to the judiciary. The State Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts. The constitution further provides that a rule of court may be repealed by a general law enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This proposed constitutional revision eliminates the requirement that a general law repealing a court rule pass by a two-thirds vote of each house, thereby providing that the Legislature may repeal a rule of court by a general law approved by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature that expresses the policy behind the repeal. The court could readopt the rule in conformity with the public policy expressed by the Legislature, but if the Legislature determines that a rule has been readopted and repeals the readopted rule, this proposed revision prohibits the court from further readopting the repealed rule without the Legislature's prior approval. Under current law, rules of the judicial nominating commissions and the Judicial Qualifications Commission may be repealed by general law enacted by a majority vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Under this proposed revision, a vote to repeal those rules is changed to repeal by general law enacted by a majority vote of the legislators present. Under current law, the Governor appoints a justice of the Supreme Court from a list of nominees provided by a judicial nominating commission, and appointments by the Governor are not subject to confirmation. This revision requires Senate confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court before the appointee can take office. If the Senate votes not to confirm the appointment, the judicial nominating commission must reconvene and may not renominate any person whose prior appointment to fill the same vacancy was not confirmed by the Senate. For the purpose of confirmation, the Senate may meet at any time. If the Senate fails to vote on the appointment of a justice within 90 days, the justice will be deemed confirmed and will take office. The Judicial Qualifications Commission is an independent commission created by the State Constitution to investigate and prosecute before the Florida Supreme Court alleged misconduct by a justice or judge. Currently under the constitution, commission proceedings are confidential until formal charges are filed by the investigative panel of the commission. Once formal charges are filed, the formal charges and all further proceedings of the commission are public. Currently, the constitution authorizes the House of Representatives to impeach a justice or judge. Further, the Speaker of the House of Representatives may request, and the Judicial Qualifications Commission must make available, all information in the commission's possession for use in deciding whether to impeach a justice or judge. This proposed revision requires the commission to make all of its files available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives but provides that such files would remain confidential during any investigation by the House of Representatives and until such information is used in the pursuit of an impeachment of a justice or judge. This revision also removes the power of the Governor to request files of the Judicial Qualifications Commission to conform to a prior constitutional change. This revision also makes technical and clarifying additions and deletions relating to the selection of chief judges of a circuit and relating to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and makes other nonsubstantive conforming and technical changes in the judicial article of the constitution. [2] |
” |
Maryland
Certified
The Maryland Orphans' Court Judge Qualifications Amendment, Prince George's County, Question 1 (2012) was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot. The measure was approved.
The measure required judges of the Orphans' Court for Prince George's County to have been admitted to practice law in Maryland and be in good standing with the Maryland Bar.[11]
The ballot measure read as follows:[12]
| “ | Question 1 Constitutional Amendment (Ch. 394 of the 2011 Legislative Session) Qualifications for Prince George’s County Orphans’ Court Judges (Amending Article IV, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution) Requires judges of the Orphans’ Court for Prince George’s County to be admitted to practice law in this State and to be a member in good standing of the Maryland Bar. For the Constitutional Amendment Against the Constitutional Amendment[2] |
” |
The Maryland Orphans' Court Judge Qualifications Amendment, Baltimore County, Question 2 (2012) was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot. The measure was approved.
The measure required judges of the Orphans' Court for Baltimore County to have been admitted to practice law in Maryland and be in good standing with the Maryland Bar.[13] The ballot measure read as follows:[12]
| “ | Question 2 Constitutional Amendment (Ch. 146 of the 2012 Legislative Session) Qualifications for Baltimore County Orphans’ Court Judges (Amending Article IV, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution) Requires judges of the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore County to be admitted to practice law in this State and to be a member in good standing of the Maryland Bar. For the Constitutional Amendment Against the Constitutional Amendment[2] |
” |
Missouri
Certified
The Missouri Judicial Appointment Amendment, Amendment 3 (2012) was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot. The measure was defeated.
The amendment sought to grant the governor the power to appoint 4 persons to the Appellate Judicial Commission, the body responsible for choosing nominees for the Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court. The governor had the power to choose three of the seven total members.[14]
The text of the ballot was:
| “ | Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the current nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges to a process that gives the governor increased authority to: appoint a majority of the commission that selects these court nominees; and appoint all lawyers to the commission by removing the requirement that the governor's appointees be nonlawyers?[15][2] | ” |
New Jersey
Certified
The New Jersey Judicial Salary and Benefits Amendment (2012) was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment which appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot in New Jersey. The measure was approved.
The idea of the measure was initially proposed by Gov. Chris Christie in 2011 in reaction the lower courts overturning part of his 2011 pension reform law. The proposal was picked up by the legislature in 2012 and pushed through at the end of July after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Christie's law was unconstitutional in relationship to judges. The amendment changes the New Jersey Constitution to define justices and judges’ salary as exclusively salary, not including encompassing pension and benefit payments.[16][17][18][19]
The question on the ballot was:
| “ | Do you approve an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution, as agreed to by the Legislature, to allow contributions set by law to be taken from the salaries of Supreme Court Justices and Superior Court Judges for their employee benefits[20][2] | ” |
New Mexico
Certified
The New Mexico Judicial Standards Amendment, Constitutional Amendment 1 (2012) was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot in New Mexico. The measure was approved.
The measure added two more members, a municipal judge and a member of the public, to the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission.[21]
The language on the ballot read as follows:[22]
| “ | A Joint Resolution Proposing An Amendment To Article 6, Section 32 Of The Constitution Of New Mexico To Provide For Two Additional Members To Sit On The Judicial Standards Commission, A Municipal Judge And A Public Member.[2] | ” |
Wyoming
Certified
The Wyoming District Court Commissioners Amendment, Constitutional Amendment C (2012) was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot in Wyoming. Although it received a simple majority, the measure was defeated because it did not receive a majority of the total votes cast in the entire election.
The measure sought to allow district court commissioners to act even if the district court judge is present and even if the district court judge could properly hear the case.[23]
The ballot text read:[24]
| “ | The adoption of this amendment would expand the authority of district court commissioners. If the amendment is adopted, a district court commissioner could perform additional duties assigned by a district court judge, subject to any restrictions the legislature may impose by law.[2] | ” |
The full text of the amendment is available here.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Alabama Act 2012-485
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Alabama Act 2012-487
- ↑ Alabama Act 2011-301
- ↑ Alabama Act 2012-481
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures", September 17, 2012
- ↑ Daily Record, "New court reform proposal still draws opposition," April 8, 2011
- ↑ St. Petersburg Times, "House Speaker Dean Cannon scales back court reform proposal," April 7, 2011
- ↑ The Herald Tribune, "Proposal would split state high court," March 17, 2011
- ↑ Florida Secretary of State, "Amendment 5," accessed September 25, 2012
- ↑ Maryland State Legislature, "SB 281 summary," accessed June 1, 2011
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Maryland State Board of Elections "2012 General Election Ballot Question Language," accessed August 21, 2012
- ↑ Maryland State Legislature, "SB 48 summary," accessed May 31, 2012
- ↑ stltoday "Mo. voters to decide on revising system for appointing judges," May 11, 2012
- ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "2012 Ballot Measures"
- ↑ NJ.com, "Christie's constitutional amendment on judges' pay gets no support from Senate and Assembly leaders," October 19, 2011
- ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "Bills 2012-2013: SCR110"
- ↑ Reuters, "New Jersey lawmakers approve judicial pension measure," July 30, 2012
- ↑ NJ.com, "N.J. Legislature approves bill to let voters decide whether judges should pay more for benefits," July 30, 2012
- ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 110 State Of New Jersey 215th Legislature Introduced May 14, 2012"
- ↑ New Mexico HJR 18
- ↑ New Mexico Secretary of State, "The 2012 General Election ballots shall contain the following language", Retrieved October 3, 2012
- ↑ Wyoming State Legislature, "Bill No.: HJ0001"
- ↑ Wyoming State Board of Elections, "Constitutional Amendment C," accessed October 1, 2012
