When I wrote my Civil Beat column this week, I didn’t realize it would be published the same day that the Chief Justice gave his annual “State of the Judiciary” speech at the Legislature.
The column echoed a couple written last year on the same topic (unfortunately, the issue hasn’t gone away).
Here’s a link: “Ian Lind: Hawaii Lawmakers Needlessly Renew Assault On The Judiciary.”
Several bills introduced this year would transfer decisions regarding the reappointment of state judges and justices to the Senate from Hawaii’s independent Judicial Selection Commission. It looks a lot like a replay of legislative moves made last year, which were widely interpreted as not-very-veiled threats against the justices of the state Supreme Court by unhappy legislators.
So I was surprised to learn later that that this issue had provided the frame for the CJ’s speech.
Here’s an excerpt from Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald’s prepared remarks, which are worth reading.
In performing our mission of deciding cases, we affect and
touch the lives of virtually everyone in our community. The
broad range of matters that come to our courts for resolution
include criminal prosecutions, and disputes involving family
relationships and children, the environment, land use, civil
rights, employment, personal injury, collective bargaining, and
business relations, among others.Our ability to perform that role comes from one thing, and only one thing: the public’s trust in our integrity and impartiality.
People must know that they will get a fair shake in our
courts, whatever their background or economic status, and even if
their views are not popular or shared by the majority.Essential to our ability to decide cases fairly and
impartially is the principle of judicial independence. This is a
critical part of the separation of powers that is fundamental to
our democracy.Judicial independence does not mean that judges are free to
decide cases however they may want. To the contrary, they must
follow the rule of law, and faithfully apply the constitutions
and laws of the United States and Hawai?i to the facts of each case.Judicial independence does mean that judges are able to
decide cases impartially–free from passion, pressure, or outside
influence. Only then can we expect the public to have confidence
and trust in our decisions.
Key legislators are still acting like they have no idea what the fuss is about, and disclaiming any ulterior motives. Don’t believe it.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you ask me, the biggest problem facing the judiciary is the lack of adequate funding from the legislature. This is manifesting itself in how many cases proceed at a slug’s pace because of the tremendous backlog in the court system. And this backlog is a direct result of the state simply not having enough judges working.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/34327391/prosecutor-rails-against-another-delay-in-peter-boy-trial
“The trial of Peter Kema, Sr., who’s accused in the death of his son “Peter Boy,” has been delayed for three more months.
Kema’s trial was to begin Monday in Hilo Circuit Court, but at his attorney’s request, the trial will be delayed to April 24.
Prosecutor Rick Damerville was clearly unhappy with the delay, but said he had to accept it because the courts in the Hilo district are overwhelmed with cases.”
“He suggested that lawmakers have ignored the need for additional judges in Hilo for 30 years.
“These judges are working with crushing caseloads, so at some point in time the legislature has to do its job. By the time we get a third circuit court position over here, they will need four, that’s how bad it is,” he said.
Damerville pointed out that Judge Glenn Hara, who was overseeing the Kema case, has retired and the process to replace him has been delayed. He speculated that not enough local attorneys have applied for the Hilo Circuit Court position.
“Attorneys in practice know what a crushing caseload it is,” he said. “Why would you want that job?”
Why indeed?
And if Sen. Josh Green’s proposal to lower the legal blood alcohol content in motorists from .08 to .05 passes this session, the system will get clogged with even more DUI cases to process.
But it’s not just the legislature to blame for this situation. Some of it has to also be placed on myopic voters who thought it was a good idea to impose a constitutional amendment calling for an across-the-board mandatory retirement of all state judges once they hit the age of 70. This, at a time when our judiciary is already shorthanded and overloaded with cases??? I voted against this amendment, but too many other people voted in support without thinking about the long term implications.
“I voted against this amendment…”
Me too, and for the same excellent reason.
I voted against it, too.
the bills are to get the bar and the judiciary to waste time stopping them so that when the budget is being decided later in session, they have expended so many of their resources that Sylvia Luke and Scott Saiki have free hands with the ax.