← Older revision
Revision as of 01:55, 24 July 2013
(2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 6:
Line 6:
−
Every year, millions of cases are filed in the United States courts. A portion proceed down the avenue of legal procedure to the court of last resort. For most of these special cases, that court of last resort is the state supreme court. The highest court is crucial, for the state's highest court is often called upon to be the final word in case law, interpretation of statute, and the constitutionality of the legislature’s laws.
+
Every year, millions of cases are filed in the United States courts. A portion proceed down the avenue of legal procedure to the court of last resort. For most of these special cases, that court of last resort is the
[[State Supreme Courts|
state supreme court
]]
. The highest court is crucial, for the state's highest court is often called upon to be the final word in case law, interpretation of statute, and the constitutionality of the legislature’s laws.
Line 114:
Line 114:
−
The spread between the highest-paid and lowest-paid state supreme court over the period spanning 2007 through 2011 is staggering. '''Texas, the highest, paid its two courts of last resort a whopping total of $27,000,000 for its
18
judges, while South Dakota, the lowest, paid its supreme court justices a total of just $2,954,325.'''<ref name=salary/> The average per judge would be $1,500,000 for Texas and $590,865 for South Dakota.
+
In recent years, state governments have cut judiciary budgets, leading to layoffs and delays in case resolution at every level of the judiciary. Hawaii issued a “Justice in Jeopardy” report in 2011. In it, Chief Justice [[Mark Recktenwald]] of the [[Hawaii Supreme Court|Hawaiian Supreme Court]] discusses the ramifications of cuts to the judiciary budget. Recktenwald stated that the cuts and state-mandated furloughs of government employees “have had substantial negative effects throughout the judicial system, by reducing, delaying and in some cases eliminating important services. Notably, Hawaii’s families and most vulnerable citizens have been significantly impacted.”<ref name=jij>[http://www.courts.state.hi.us/news_and_reports/featured_news/2011/01/justice_in_jeopardy.html ''Hawaii State Judiciary'', “Justice in Jeopardy: Furloughs and Budget Cuts Negatively Impacting State Court System“]</ref>
+
+
+
There does not appear to be any rhyme or reason to judicial salaries.
The spread between the highest-paid and lowest-paid state supreme court over the period spanning 2007 through 2011 is staggering. '''Texas, the highest, paid its two courts of last resort a whopping total of $27,000,000 for its
eighteen
judges, while South Dakota, the lowest, paid its
five
supreme court justices a total of just $2,954,325.'''<ref name=salary/> The average per judge would be $1,500,000 for Texas and $590,865 for South Dakota.
Line 145:
Line 148:
−
'''Over the five year period, Missouri paid each justice more per disposition that any other state.''' The state paid just over $14,500 for its 354 dispositions. The next closest state, Minnesota, paid nearly $6,000 less for its 588 dispositions. From this perspective, it seems that Minnesota justices did a third more work for less pay than their Missouri counterparts .
+
'''Over the five year period, Missouri paid each justice more per disposition that any other state.''' The state paid just over $14,500 for its 354 dispositions. The next closest state, Minnesota, paid nearly $6,000 less for its 588 dispositions. From this perspective, it seems that Minnesota justices did a third more work for less pay than their Missouri counterparts.
Line 172:
Line 175:
<small>''*States often pay the chief justice a higher salary than associate justices. In an effort to keep the numbers simple, however, the associate justice salary was used to complete the salary tables.''</small>
<small>''*States often pay the chief justice a higher salary than associate justices. In an effort to keep the numbers simple, however, the associate justice salary was used to complete the salary tables.''</small>
</center>
</center>
−
'''The nation's most populous state, California, paid its justices less per disposition than any other state supreme court.''' In comparison, the second most populous state, Texas, handled roughly 5,000 more dispositions and paid their justices $350 more per disposition. California has faced well-publicized budget woes in the last decade. Cuts to the state budget resulting from deficits have negatively impacted the state's entire court system.<ref>[http://www.afscme.org/blog/california-budget-cuts-leave-court-system-decimated ''AFSCME'', “California Budget Cuts Leave Court System Decimated”, May 23, 2013]</ref> California's Chief Justice [[Tani Cantil-Sakauye]] is concerned about the effect of budget cuts on citizen access to the courts. She explained, "In Sacramento, we know of a situation where a father sought custody of his son during a time when the mother was trying to take the son out of state. The father went to the Sacramento court, but due to delays, employee layoffs, reduced services - all due to budget cuts - that father was unable to file his papers and his son left the state, fate unknown."<ref>[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_20413648/california-chief-justice-attorneys-seek-more-court-funding ''Times Herald'', "California chief justice, attorneys seek more court funding", April 17, 2012]</ref>
'''The nation's most populous state, California, paid its justices less per disposition than any other state supreme court.''' In comparison, the second most populous state, Texas, handled roughly 5,000 more dispositions and paid their justices $350 more per disposition. California has faced well-publicized budget woes in the last decade. Cuts to the state budget resulting from deficits have negatively impacted the state's entire court system.<ref>[http://www.afscme.org/blog/california-budget-cuts-leave-court-system-decimated ''AFSCME'', “California Budget Cuts Leave Court System Decimated”, May 23, 2013]</ref> California's Chief Justice [[Tani Cantil-Sakauye]] is concerned about the effect of budget cuts on citizen access to the courts. She explained, "In Sacramento, we know of a situation where a father sought custody of his son during a time when the mother was trying to take the son out of state. The father went to the Sacramento court, but due to delays, employee layoffs, reduced services - all due to budget cuts - that father was unable to file his papers and his son left the state, fate unknown."<ref>[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_20413648/california-chief-justice-attorneys-seek-more-court-funding ''Times Herald'', "California chief justice, attorneys seek more court funding", April 17, 2012]</ref>
Line 210:
Line 212:
<small>''*Disposition data for Florida (4) and Pennsylvania (6) is unavailable.''</small>
<small>''*Disposition data for Florida (4) and Pennsylvania (6) is unavailable.''</small>
</center>
</center>
−
Line 218:
Line 219:
−
Access to justice is always a hot-button topic.
In recent years, state governments have cut judiciary
budgets
, leading to layoffs and delays in case resolution at every level of the judiciary
.
Hawaii issued a “Justice in Jeopardy” report in 2011. In it, Chief Justice [[Mark Recktenwald]] of the [[Hawaii Supreme Court|Hawaiian Supreme Court]] discusses the ramifications of cuts to the judiciary budget. Recktenwald stated that the cuts and state-mandated furloughs of government employees “have had substantial negative effects throughout the judicial system, by reducing, delaying and in some cases eliminating important services. Notably, Hawaii’s families and most vulnerable citizens have been significantly impacted.”<ref name=jij>[http://www.courts.state.hi.us/news_and_reports/featured_news/2011/01/justice_in_jeopardy.html ''Hawaii State Judiciary'', “Justice in Jeopardy: Furloughs and Budget Cuts Negatively Impacting State Court System“]</ref>
+
Access to justice is always a hot-button topic.
The previous section mentioned shrinking court
budgets. As the
current
economic fallout continues, will we see it reflected in the amount of cases state courts are able to handle? Will the bottleneck at the trial court level stifle appellate review of cases? Further, will legal issues be stymied before reaching the supreme court level because of economic worries? Case law – the judge-made law of the state – would be impacted if that happened. Only time will tell.
−
+
−
+
−
The California judiciary, notable for its ongoing budget woes, has also been on a “rollercoaster ride” recently. In June 2013, though the state judiciary budget was increasing by $63 million (tentatively), the [[Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California|Los Angeles Superior Court]] laid off 511 individuals. Though $60 million was earmarked for state trial courts, after five years of decreasing budgets, the L.A. court had reached its limit and was forced to make hard decisions. The [[California Supreme Court]], however, received its share of $3 million.<ref>[http://capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=11iigxevwps9j3g ''Capitol Weekly'', “California judiciary scrambles for dollars”, “June 18, 2013]</ref>
+
−
+
−
+
−
As the economic fallout continues, will we see it reflected in the amount of cases state courts are able to handle? Will the bottleneck at the trial court level stifle appellate review of cases? Further, will legal issues be stymied before reaching the supreme court level because of economic worries? Case law – the judge-made law of the state – would be impacted if that happened. Only time will tell.
+
Line 534:
Line 529:
! style="background-color:#003e66; color: white" | Dispositions
! style="background-color:#003e66; color: white" | Dispositions
! style="background-color:#003e66; color: white" | Seats
! style="background-color:#003e66; color: white" | Seats
+
! style="background-color:#003e66; color: white" | Dispositions per judge
! style="background-color:#003e66; color: white" | Dispositions to Filings
! style="background-color:#003e66; color: white" | Dispositions to Filings
−
! style="background-color:#003e66; color: white" | Dispositions per judge
|-
|-
−
| [[Alabama Supreme Court]] || 22,917|| 9,020 || 9
|| 0.39
|| 1,002
+
| [[Alabama Supreme Court]] || 22,917|| 9,020 || 9 || 1,002
|| 0.39
|-
|-
−
| [[Idaho Supreme Court]] || 2,371 || 1,457 || 9 || 0.61
|| 291
+
| [[Idaho Supreme Court]] || 2,371 || 1,457 || 9
|| 291
|| 0.61
|-
|-
−
| | [[Texas Supreme Court]] and [[Texas Court of Criminal Appeals]] (combined) || 59,200 || 53,928 || 18
|| 0.91
|| 2,996
+
| | [[Texas Supreme Court]] and [[Texas Court of Criminal Appeals]] (combined) || 59,200 || 53,928 || 18 || 2,996
|| 0.91
|-
|-
−
| [[Maryland Court of Appeals]] || 770 || 710 || 7 || 0.92
|| 101
+
| [[Maryland Court of Appeals]] || 770 || 710 || 7
|| 101
|| 0.92
|-
|-
−
| [[State of New York Court of Appeals]] || 8,761 || 8,108 || 7
|| 0.93
|| 1,158
+
| [[State of New York Court of Appeals]] || 8,761 || 8,108 || 7 || 1,158
|| 0.93
|}
|}
</center>
</center>