STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE ACT OF 1980 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1980 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON JURISPRUDENCE AND GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, The subcommittee met at 9:36 a.m., in room 5110 of the Dirksen Also present: Arthur B. Briskman, subcommittee chief counsel, and Richard Velde, minority counsel; Ken Feinberg, counsel; Eric Hultman, counsel to Senator Thurmond, and Michael Remington, counsel, House Judiciary Committee. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEFLIN Senator HEFLIN. Today this subcommittee resumes hearings on the proposed State Justice Institute. This is the third hearing to be held on the subject, the first two having been held last fall. In the first two hearings, we received compelling testimony on the need for such an institute to provide financial and technical assistance to the various State court systems throughout the United States. Based on this testimony, as well as the recommendations from various organizations, I introduced the State Justice Institute Act of 1980, Senate bill 2387, for the establishment of such an institute. I am glad that this legislation has broad-based support on both sides of the aisle. The reason for providing financial assistance to State courts is basically twofold. The first has to do with the changing role of judges generally. Earlier in this century, there was much argument as to whether or not a judge's function included an obligation to see that cases in their courts moved toward disposition in a regular and an efficient manner. Today, however, problems of administration have taken their place alongside problems of adjudication as primary responsibilities of judges. Everyone has come to acknowledge that today's judges have a duty to insure that their cases do not simply languish on the vine, but instead move to a conclusion with as much disnatch and economy of time and effort as practicable. This along with a heightened interest in continuing legal education generally have resulted in thousands of judges attending intensified orientation and refresher courses offered by such organizations as the National Judicial College and the American Academy of Judicial Education. Second, State courts have become the primary focal point of justice in the United States. Our expectation of State courts and the burdens we have placed upon them through congressional as well as court actions have increased significantly in recent years. Today, State courts decide approximately 98 percent of all law suits tried. I asked Mr. Briskman about this and he said that figure was taken from testimony that had been given in previous hearings. When you stop and think about it, it is a most unusual figure in regard to where the litigation is in the judicial system of this Nation. It is thus appropriate to provide financial and technical assistance to State courts to insure that they remain strong and effective in a time when their workloads are increasing as a result of Federal policies and decisions. In this regard, it should be noted that present Federal policy has allowed state court systems to receive Federal funds through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. I think it is wise to note that the people of America are interested in seeing that the Federal Government assist in providing the quality of justice just as well as they are providing quality in health plans and health programs and in education. There are, however, inherent separation-of-powers problems when a Federal executive agency is allowed to designate the programs State courts ought to follow by directly providing Federal assistance. LEAA places primary emphasis on the Nation's crime problem. It was only through administrative interpretation and later by congressional enactment that State courts have been able to receive Federal support under the banner of improvement in the administration of criminal justice in the States. This overlooks the fact, however, that in most courts the criminal and civil functions are inseparable. As a result, it has been difficult for courts to undertake the kind of broadly based improvements that must be undertaken if the total justice system, criminal as well as civil, is to function as it should. Today, Federal assistance to State courts faces yet another obstacle. With our country facing the severest economic crisis since the Depression, the Congress and the administration must find ways to decrease Federal spending and balance the Federal budget. Recent newspaper accounts suggest that the President is considering reducing the Justice Department's 1981 budget by as much as $165 million. As Attorney General Civiletti testified before the Judiciary Committee last week, if such a budget reduction occurs, much of it will have to come from the grant program of LEAA. While I am for balancing the Federal budget, I cannot agree that LEAA should be emasculated. In my judgment, the LEAA program has been a tremendous benefit and has had a tremendous impact on this Nation and should be continued. But I am afraid that LEAA is in trouble. We must not jeopardize the quality of justice that Americans receive in our State court systems because of the important Federal interests involved. We must not let a lack of funds impair the ability of State courts to improve the quality of justice that they dispense. The concept of a State Justice Institute has been endorsed by such organizations as the Conference of Chief Justices, the Appellate Judges Conference, the Council of the American Bar Association Division of Judicial Administration. Also, the State Justice Institute Act was introduced in the Houses by the Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier, chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Courts. He was joined by a bipartisan group of cosponsors including Congressman Peter Rodino, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the Honorable Caldwell Butler of Virginia. It is in this light that we open today's hearings. We are fortunate to have several distinguished witnesses who will testify. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for being here today and we look forward to your comments. I would like to introduce at this time-I think everyone generally knows him-Chief Judge Theodore R. Newman, Jr., of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Judge Newman is an Alabamian originally and we are proud of him in Alabama. He is also the president-elect of the National Center for State Courts. Judge Newman, we would be delighted to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE THEODORE R. NEWMAN, JR., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS Judge NEWMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to acknowledge also the presence with me today of the court executive of the District of Columbia court system, Larry Polansky, who is appearing as an observer on behalf of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be asked to present my views on the State Justice Institute Act of 1980 for I share the views of the distinguished judges and scholars who have preceded me, and some of those who I know will follow me, specifically Chief Justice Sheran and Chief Justice Utter, as witnesses in these hearings and who see the act as an important landmark in the history of our Federal system and in our continuing quest for a more perfect system of justice. The act proposes a reasoned and balanced approach to the important and complex issues involved in establishing an appropriate Federal role in relation to State court systems. Most significantly, it will provide the means for focusing national attention, and the national expectations that implies, on one of our most neglected concerns as a great and diverse Nation; that is the quality of justice administered at the State and local levels. These courts, which now include those in the District of Columbia, handle 98 percent of the matters which bring our citizens into the judicial process and it is in these courts that the great mass of our citizens make their judgments on the quality of justice our society provides. I note in passing that these courts of the State are the only courts of general jurisdiction. Our article III Federal courts are all courts of limited jurisdiction. They are, indeed, the people's courts and, if they are not perceived as providing justice, the consequences are severe and endless and include heavy and unnecessary burdens on the Federal justice system. Second, the act strikes a delicate but proper balance between functions and responsibilities that are national in nature, and thus appropriately Federal, and those which must remain securely in State control. Thus, it is true to the principles of federalism, but equally important, it is true to the doctrine of separation of powers. These are not theoretical or philosophical issues of concern only to judges and legal scholars, they are at the heart of the problems and must be resolved if we are to develop and sustain the national resources and pro grams that can be the most effective in improving the judicial institutions and processes which necessarily function under greatly differing circumstances in thousands of locations. The dimensions of our State justice systems are vast from any perspective. It is axiomatic that decisions made by them are among the most important affecting the lives of our citizens, few if any of whom escape involvement with the courts at any one or more critical points in their lives. Geographically, the systems involve the District of Columbia along with 54 States and territories stretching from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in the South Atlantic northward across the continent to Alaska and then to Guam and American Samoa in the Western Pacific. They include more than 17,000 trials and appellate courts with upward of 25,000 judges and some 150,000 clerks, administrators, and other support personnel. Their costs run into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Yet, as large and as vital as the total system is, it is among the most neglected of government functions in many areas and has been one of the last great enterprises, public or private, to adapt to the modern world. One aspect of the problem, as cited by Edward B. McConnell, director of the National Center for State Courts, is not that the courts have been badly managed or mismanaged, but that they have not been managed at all. Fortunately, this condition is changing, thanks to the work of the National Center among others, itself only 9 years old, and other national organizations which have begun operating in recent years, notably the Institute for Court Management in Denver and the National Judicial College in Reno, Nev. These highly regarded agencies are not only bringing national perspectives and expectations to bear on the problems of our State and local courts but are providing the absolutely essential national resources needed to help solve them. I cannot emphasize too much the importance of national resources and perspectives if we are to deal with our problems in the most efficient and effective manner, as you know from your own experience in modernizing the judicial system of Alabama, Mr. Chairman, and as a native of that State, one of the finest jobs that that State has ever had done to make its government more efficient. You know how difficult and tenacious the problems can be, and the critical role that national resources can play in helping to correct them. We want our State courts to be free and independent, of course. We want them to reflect, as they must, what is special in their own historic development and the needs of the people they serve. But they also have much in common, including the unifying obligation to enforce the laws and the Constitution of the United States. This means that we have at bottom only one judicial system, despite 55 separate jurisdictions-56 if we count the article III Federals. There is then an overwhelming national interest in the quality of justice administered by our State and local courts and, in my view, a national obligation to assist with the kinds of national programs that are needed, but are beyond the resources of individual State court systems, and for which, under our Federal system, the National Government is the only governmental authority competent to act. I am happy to say it has been acting, although initially by accident and, therefore, in something less than the ideal manner. Congress, as you know, did not specifically include courts in the initial legislation |