[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Moreover, the supreme court has no28 power to appoint lower-court personnel or to determine their budgets.And29 even the power to prescribe procedures is very tenuous, as the chief justice30 tacitly acknowledged in the following response to a concerned circuit clerk31 whose judge was flouting procedural requirements: Some of them, we may32 just have to let them die off. 2033 The state has long paid all the expenses of the two appellate courts and34 the salaries of circuit and chancery judges and their court reporters.Never-35 theless, counties have increasingly resented their financial responsibility for36 funding all other aspects of the courts of general jurisdiction.This led fifty-37 two of the counties to challenge, unsuccessfully, the constitutionality of the38 funding system and, in 1995, the legislature committed to funding gradually39 the court-related personnel for this level of the judicial branch.But even The Power and Politics of the Judicial Branch 2331 after the funding phase-in is complete, the counties will still be responsible2 for support staff and court infrastructure, barring additional action by the3 legislature.Moreover, despite the state s role in creating them, the county4 shares with city government the cost of the district courts, excepting the5 judges salaries, through a set of locally negotiated funding arrangements.6 Finally, city governments fund every aspect of city courts.So, particularly at7 the level where mostArkansans interact with the judicial branch, tremendous8 disparity exists in the quality of that justice as a result of the effective lob-9 bying of legislators and the property taxes available to cover the significant10 costs of running courts.2111 According to one 1998 analysis of state funding of courts, the percentage12 of the state budget committed to the judiciary was smaller inArkansas than in[233], (12)13 all but four other states.And, despite the funding phase-in for some additional14 personnel, Arkansas will unquestionably remain in the bottom tier of states15 on this measure of reform.A more general measure of the centralizationLines: 337 to16 of the management and budgeting in 1985 ranked Arkansas thirty-first, and 17 little evidence suggests improvement in that area, even after amendment0.0pt PgV18 80 s implementation.22 19 The third reform goal involves judicial education and qualifications.TheNormal Page20 central ideas here are that, at minimum, all judges should be lawyers; that ex-PgEnds: TEX21 tensive, ongoing, in-service training programs are necessary to keep judges22 and court personnel abreast of substantive, procedural, and administrative23 developments; and that judicial removal commissions should exist so com- [233], (12)24 plaints about inappropriate judicial conduct can be heard and unsatisfactory25 judges removed from the bench.26 With the exception of the quasi-judicial functions of county judges over-27 seeing the county courts, all judges in Arkansas are now lawyers.This is,28 indeed, a break from the recent past when county judges oversaw a crucial29 area of the justice system, juvenile justice.The 1987 court ruling that declared30 this practice unconstitutional, therefore, was a highly significant reform.31 After the ruling, however, one duty related to children did remain in the32 hands of county judges, if they so chose: the determination of paternity.33 These judges used a variety of techniques unconnected to modern science34 to ascertain a child s father.Pulaski County JudgeArch Campbell s infamous35 ear test based paternity rulings on the comparative shape of the ears of the36 child and the prospective father.Another county judge said in 1988, The37 best test.is just to put the kid down and let him run to his daddy. A 198838 constitutional amendment removed this judicial power from county judges39 as well, leaving Arkansas s judiciary an attorneys-only club.23 234 The Power and Politics of the Judicial Branch1 Although funding levels do lag behind other states, the Education Division2 of the aoc does provide orientation programs for new judges and continuing3 education opportunities for judges and other court personnel.In addition,4 most appellate and circuit judges have attended out-of-state seminars and5 workshops sponsored by national foundations, but such training is not6 required by the state.Still, the commitment to training is a sign of tangible7 progress.8 Paralleling the ethical reforms seen in other parts of state government9 since the late 1980s, Arkansas also has taken significant steps forward in10 the area of judicial discipline.Until 1989, the state had no effective way11 to discipline or remove an aberrant judge.The impeachment process was12 costly, cumbersome, and highly unlikely (since the legislature is so rarely[234], (13)13 in session), and a Judicial Ethics Committee, established after some highly14 publicized episodes of judicial misconduct in 1976, did not file a single15 charge or complaint from its creation in 1977 to its dissolution in 1989.AsLines: 34516 the then chief justice noted, You can have a judge who eats valium like 17 popcorn and a delegation comes and asks me to do something about it and0.0pt Pg18 I can t
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
