[Senate Report 109-316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
SENATE
2nd Session 109-316
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 559
TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2068
TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
July 31, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Professional Staff Member
Michael L. Alexander, Minority Staff Director
Beth Grossman, Minority Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background.......................................................1
III. Legislative History..............................................5
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation....................................5
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................6
Calendar No. 559
109th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 109-316
======================================================================
TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
_______
July 31, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Collins, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2068]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2068) to preserve
existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, having considered the same reports favorably thereon
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
I. Purpose and Summary
The purpose of S. 2068 is to preserve existing judgeships
within the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
inadvertently impacted by the 107th Congress under the Family
Court Act of 2001.
II. Background
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL COURT SYSTEM
The local District of Columbia Courts consist of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals. The District of Columbia Courts
constitute the Judicial Branch of the District of Columbia and
they are separate and distinct from the legislative and
executive branches of the District of Columbia.\1\ The District
of Columbia court system is over-seen by Congress and funded by
the federal government.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See D.C. Code Section 1-204.31 (2003); 2002 Annual Report of
the District of Columbia Courts, p. 11.
\2\ For a history of the District of Columbia court system, see
Senate Report No. 107-108, Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges on both the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
and the Superior Court are selected through a process that
includes the involvement of both local and federal entities.
When a vacancy occurs on the Court, notice is sent to the
District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission, a
District of Columbia agency composed of seven members.\3\ The
Judicial Nominations Commission solicits applicants for the
vacancy, conducts an investigation and review of each applicant
and selects three possible candidates to fill the vacancy. The
names of those three candidates are sent to the President, who
then selects one of the names to fill the vacancy on the Court.
Once the nomination is made, it is sent to the Senate for
confirmation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See D.C. Code section 1-204.34 (2003) (One member is appointed
by the President, two members are appointed by the Board of Governors
of the unified District of Columbia Bar, two members are appointed by
the Major, one member is appointed by the D.C. Council, one member is
appointed by the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.
\4\ D.C. Code section 1-203.33 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia is the local
trial court of general jurisdiction in the District of
Columbia.\5\ It consists of six divisions including civil,
criminal, probate, social services, and the Family Court. The
last major reform of the District of Columbia Courts occurred
in 2002. On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the
District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001.\6\ The purpose
of that Act was to restructure the then-family division of the
Superior Court into a new Family Court. The Act was intended to
promote the efficiency and consistency in the assignment of
judges to the family Court, improve the handling of cases
involving families and neglected children, and help recruit and
retain experienced judges to serve in the Family Court.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ D.C. Code section 1-204.31 (2003).
\6\ Public Law No. 107-114.
\7\ See Senate Report No. 107-108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 11-903 of the District of Columbia Code establishes
an overall limit on the number of judges that may be seated on
the Superior Court. The current limit is 58 in addition to a
chief judge. Section 3(a) of the Family Court Act, among other
things, allows the limit to be exceeded to appoint additional
Family judges if the number of judges in the Family Court is
less than 15 and if certain other conditions are met.\8\
Section 3(b) of the Act required the Court to complete a
transition plan and submit it to Congress within 90 days of
enactment. Section 3(c) of the Act required that the transition
plan include an analysis of the number of judges then sitting
on the Family Court. In addition, section 3(c) required that,
should the number of judges in the Family Court be less than
15, then a corresponding number of vacancies would be created
on the Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These other requirements include: (1) there are no other judges
already on the Court who are willing to volunteer for a transfer into
the Family Court from another division, (2) the chief judge obtains
permission from the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration with the
Court, and (3) the chief judge reports to Congress on the need to
exceed the cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2002, the chief judge submitted to Congress the
required transition plan. The plan determined that the number
of judges qualified and willing to serve on the Family Court
was 12 and, therefore, pursuant to the Family Court Act, three
new vacancies were created on the Family Court, notwithstanding
the overall limit to the number of judges on the Superior Court
in section 11-903 of the District of Columbia Code.\9\ As a
result, the nomination process was triggered and on January 21,
2003 the President nominated Judith Nan Macaluso, Jerry Stewart
Byrd, and Joseph Michael Ryan III to fill the three newly
created Family Court seats. Those nominations were referred to
the then Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, as the
committee of jurisdiction over the District of Columbia Courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ District of Columbia Family Court Transition Plan, April 5,
2002, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROBLEM AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Prior to the nominations of the three Family Court
nominees, the Committee had also received the nomination of
Fern Flanagan Saddler. As with most DC Court nominations, she
was nominated to fill a vacancy created by a retired judge,
Judge Patricia Wynn, and was not designated for a particular
division. Later in the year, the Committee received the
nominations of Brian F. Holeman and Craig S. Iscoe to be
Superior Court judges to fill vacancies created by retired
judges Mary Ellen Abrecht and Frederick D. Dorsey,
respectively. On June 26, 2003, the Committee favorably
reported the nominations of Fern Saddler and Judith Nan
Macaluso to the full Senate and on June 27, 2003, both were
confirmed.
Subsequently, the Committee learned that with the
confirmation of Judges Macaluso and Saddler, the Court only had
two open seats due to the overall limit on the number of
judges; however, there were four nominations still pending in
the Committee. If all four of those nominations had involved
judges not specifically designated to serve on the Family
Court, the limit on the number of judges in section 11-903
would have permitted only two of the four nominated individuals
to serve on the Court, even if the Senate confirmed all four.
While the Family Court Act resulted in creating three new seats
on the Court, that Act failed to account for the new seats in
the overall limit outlined in section 11-903. In addition,
while the four nominations were still pending in Committee, on
September 25, 2003, the Committee received the additional
nomination of Gregory E. Jackson to fill the seat of retired
judge Mildred M. Edwards.
In response to this problem, Chairman Collins, along with
Senators Voinovich and Durbin, Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, introduced S.
1561 in the 108th Congress to amend section 11-903 (an
identical bill was subsequently reintroduced as S. 2068 in the
109th Congress). In addition, the Committee determined that it
would move forward with the nominations of Joseph Michael Ryan
III, Jerry Stewart Byrd, Brian F. Holeman, and Craig S. Iscoe.
The Family Court Act provides an exception to section 11-903 to
allow Family Court judges to be seated notwithstanding the
limit. Therefore, the Committee determined that if Brian F.
Holeman and Craig S. Iscoe were confirmed prior to the
confirmations of Joseph Michael Ryan III and Jerry Stewart
Byrd, the Family Court nominees, all four could be seated as
judges, notwithstanding the fact that there were only two
vacancies on the Court. Once the Holeman and Iscoe nominations
were confirmed, there were no more seats remaining on the
Court; however, because of the exception in the Family Court
Act, the Court could exceed the section 11-903 limit to seat
the two Family Court judges, Ryan and Byrd.
On October 22, 2003, the Committee favorably reported the
four nominations to the full Senate and on October 24, 2003,
the Senate confirmed first the nominations of Brian F. Holeman
and Craig S. Iscoe and then, on the same day, confirmed the
nominations of Joseph Michael Ryan III and Jerry Stewart Byrd.
However, Gregory E. Jackson was not able to be confirmed until
November 21, 2004 when an additional vacancy was created due to
the retirement of an additional Superior Court judge.
On February 14, 2005, the Committee received the nomination
of Jennifer M. Anderson to be Associate Judge, D.C. Superior
Court. On November 10, 2005, the Committee received the
nomination of Carol A. Dalton to serve on the Superior Court;
and on January 26, 2006, the Committee received the nomination
of Pamela S. Gray, also to serve on the Superior Court. The
Committee has been unable to process the nominations of Dalton
and Gray since no vacancies exist on the Superior Court. On
July 11, 2006, the Committee was able to schedule the
confirmation for Anderson due to the nomination of Justice Anna
Blackburne-Rigsby to be Associate Judge of the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals.
In addition, should section 11-903 not be amended, the
result may be a permanent decrease in the number of judges
serving in the non-Family Court divisions of the Superior
Court, including civil and criminal, as other judges decide to
retire. In 2002, when the Family Court Act of 2001 went into
effect, the civil division of the Superior Court had nearly
98,000 cases available for disposition, while the Family Court
boasted only 38,000.\10\ Of this 98,000 from the civil
division, only 88,123 were actually disposed, and just under
14,000 were disposed from Family Court.\11\ Three years later,
the situation is quite similar, even in the wake of 3
additional judges being assigned to the Family Court division.
In 2005, the civil division and Family Court division saw
clearance rates of 97% and 87% respectively.\12\ And while 97%
and 87% may seem impressive, given the large scale for which
the courts operate on, a 97% clearance rate for the civil
division has resulted in a case backlog of over 2,400. The
subsequent pending case load of 87% for the Family Court has
resulted in a backlog of over 1,600 cases. Overall, percentage
dispositions for the Superior Court are falling, and the result
is a continual increase in pending cases for each subsequent
year. In 2003, the District of Columbia had over 5,900 felony
case filings for 100,000 population, the third highest in the
nation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 2002 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts.
\11\ 2005 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts.
\12\ 2005 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts.
\13\ Examining the Work of State Courts, 2004, Criminal Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The detrimental effect on various Superior Court divisions
is evident by the increase in pending case loads as well as the
decrease in total cases disposed. S. 2068 would address both of
these issues by increasing the number of associate judges from
58 to 61, in an effort to dispose more cases and lessen pending
case loads for Superior Court divisions.
III. Legislative History
S. 1561 was introduced on August 1, 2003 by Senators
Collins, Voinovich, and Durbin. The legislation was referred to
the then Committee on Governmental Affairs, and subsequently
referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, the
Workforce, and the District of Columbia. The bill was favorably
polled by the subcommittee on October 15, 2003, and on October
22, 2003, the Committee ordered the bill favorably reported by
voice vote. On November 20, 2003, the bill passed the Senate
unanimous consent, and was referred to the House Committee on
Government Reform on November 21, 2003. No further action was
taken on the legislation during the 108th Congress.
The legislation was reintroduced by Senators Collins,
Voinovich, and Akaka on November 18, 2005, and was referred to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on
the same date. On January 27, 2006, S. 2068 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia, which favorably polled
the legislation on April 21, 2006. Senator Lieberman
cosponsored the bill on June 13, 2006. On June 15, 2006, the
Committee considered S. 2068 and ordered the bill reported
favorably by voice vote without amendment. Members present were
Senators Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Coburn, Chafee, Bennett,
Lieberman, Carper, Dayton, and Pryor.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 amends section 11-903 of the District of Columbia
Code to increase the limit on the number of judges on the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 58 to 61.
V. Estimated Cost of the Legislation
June 16, 2006.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2068, a bill to
preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Donald B. Marron,
Acting Director.
Enclosure.
S. 2068--A bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia
S. 2068 would amend the District of Columbia Code to
increase the number of associate judges on the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia from 58 to 61. Under current law,
the Superior Court is subject to a cap of 58 judgeships. Based
on information from the Superior Court, CBO estimates that
increasing the cap on judgeships to 61 would cost about $1
million a year for salaries and benefits of additional judges
and support staff, subject to appropriation of the necessary
amounts. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
S. 2068 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that
there are no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments. The legislation contains
no other regulatory impact.
VII. Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic and existing law, in which no
change is proposed, is shown in roman):
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE
TITLE 11, ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
CHAPTER 9. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Sec. 11-903. Composition
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall
consist of a chief judge and [fifty-eight] 61 associate judges.