[Senate Report 110-256]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
110-256
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 556
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. 550
TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
January 8, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Beth M. Grossman, Senior Counsel
Jennifer L. Tyree, Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
Lisa M. Powell, Chief Investigative Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Amanda Wood, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia
David W. Cole, Minority Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia
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..............................................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation....................................5
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................5
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................5
Calendar No. 556
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-256
======================================================================
TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
_______
January 8, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 550]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 550) 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. 550 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\D.C. Code Section 1-204.31 (2003); 2002 Annual Report of the
District of Columbia Courts, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the terms of the National Capital Revitalization and
Self Government Act of 1997, Congress oversees the District of
Columbia court system, which is funded by the federal
government.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Public Law No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251. For a history of the
District of Columbia court system, see Senate Report No. 107-108,
Appendix 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\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
Mayor, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\D.C. Code section 1-204.33 (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 is organized into divisions--including civil,
criminal, probate, and the Family Court--that provide
specialized handling of cases in those areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\D.C. Code section 1-204.31 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
(Act).\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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Court judges if the number of judges in the Family Court
is less than 15 and if certain other conditions are met.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. D.C. code Sec. 11-908A(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 a determination of the numbers of judges then-
serving as Superior Court judges who meet the qualifications,
and are willing and able, to serve as Family Court judges. 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
Superior Court.
On April 5, 2002, the Chief Judge submitted to Congress the
required transition plan. Under the plan, the Chief Judge
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\ In other words, three
``vacancies'' on the Court were created, but the overall cap on
the number of associate judges on the Superior Court remained
at 58, as the Act failed to account for the new seats in the
overall limit set forth in section 11-903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See District of Columbia Family Court Transition Plan, April 5,
2002, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROBLEM AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
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. In addition to the three
nominations to fill the three newly-created Family Court seats,
several judges were nominated in 2003 to fill vacancies created
by retiring judges.
On June 27, 2003, the Senate confirmed Judge Macaluso to
fill a Family Court vacancy and Fern Flanagan Saddler, who was
nominated to fill a general Superior Court vacancy created by a
retired judge. On October 24, 2003, the Senate confirmed Craig
Iscoe and Brian Holeman as Superior Court judges. The two
remaining Family Court nominees--Judge Byrd and Judge Ryan--
were then confirmed, under the provisions of the Family Court
Act which allowed the limit on the total number of Superior
Court judges to be exceeded under certain conditions to allow
for the appointment of Family Court judges. With these two
confirmations, the Family Court had its full complement of 15
dedicated judges. The Superior Court, however, now had 60
associate judges.
Moreover, on September 25, 2003, while the four previous
nominations were still pending in Committee, the Committee
received the additional nomination of Gregory E. Jackson to
fill the seat of the retired judge Mildred M. Edwards. The
Senate, however, could not confirm him for the position at that
time, however, because he would have been the 61st associate
judge on the Superior Court, and confirming him would have
meant exceeding the statutory maximum number of judges set out
in D.C. Code Sec. 11-903. Instead, Mr. Jackson had to wait for
additional retirements to bring the total number of Superior
Court judges below the statutory maximum; as a result it was
over a year before his nomination was reported out of Committee
and confirmed by the Senate.
Since then, that unfortunate pattern has continued, with
individuals nominated for ``vacancies'' on the Superior Court
upon the retirement of a judge, but then forced to wait until
the overall number of judges is reduced through subsequent
retirements before the candidate can be confirmed. Often, this
has resulted in significant delays in consideration of
nominees--and inconvenience or hardship for nominees whose
status and employment remain in limbo.
Should section 11-903 not be amended, moreover, 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 judges retire but cannot be replaced
immediately.
Such a decrease in the number of judges would worsen
existing case backlogs. 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, and the
Family Court had over 38,000 cases available for
disposition.\10\ Since that time, the caseload of the civil
division has increased somewhat, while the Family court has
reduced its caseload somewhat. In 2006, the civil division had
116,306 cases available for disposition, while the Family Court
had 27,420 available for disposition.\11\ Although the civil
division and the Family Court have high clearance rates,\12\
because of the large scale of the court's operations, they both
carry large case backlogs. At the end of 2006, the civil
division had 38,636 cases pending, while the Family Court had
14,482 cases pending.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\2002 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts, p. 65.
Cases available for disposition include cases pending at the beginning
of the year, plus new cases filed and cases reactivated during the
course of the year.
\11\2006 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts, p. 29.
\12\In 2006, the Family Court division had an overall clearance
rate of 90 percent. The civil division had a clearance rate for civil
actions of 128%--i.e., it disposed of more civil action cases than were
added--although its overall clearance rate for all cases (including
landlord-tenant and small claims) was not available. 2006 Annual Report
of the District of Columbia Courts, p. 29.
\13\2006 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insufficient judicial staffing and the resulting delays in
case resolution have detrimental effects on the parties to the
cases, delaying access to justice while increasing the cost and
prolonging the uncertainty involved in litigation. S. 550 would
address these issues by increasing the number of associate
judges from 58 to 61.
III. Legislative History
The legislation was introduced as S. 550 by Senators Akaka,
Voinovich, and Lieberman on February 12, 2007, and was referred
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
on the same date. Previous versions of the bill, S. 1561,
introduced by Senators Collins, Voinovich, and Durbin in the
108th Congress, and S. 2068, introduced by Senators Collins,
Voinovich, and Akaka in the 109th Congress, passed the Senate
by unanimous consent. No action was taken in the House of
Representatives. On February 15, 2007, the Committee considered
S. 550 and ordered the bill reported favorably by voice vote
without amendment. Members present were Lieberman, Akaka,
Carper, Pryor, Landrieu, Tester, Collins, Voinovich, and
Coburn.
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 Legislation
February 22, 2007.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 550, 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,
Peter R. Orszag.
Enclosure.
S. 550--A bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia
S. 550 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. 550 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 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
11-903. COMPOSITION
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall
consist of a chief judge and [fifty-eight] 61 associate judges.