UNIFIED COURT SYSTEMS - A RANKING OF THE STATES

• NCJ Number: 48281
• Journal: Justice System Journal Volume: 3 Issue: 3 Dated: (SPRING 1978) Pages: 244-280
• Author(s): L BERKSON
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 17 pages
• Grant Number(s): 76-NI-99-0124
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored

Annotation

DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM FOR RANKING THE DEGREE OF UNITY AND CENTRALIZATION IN THE COURT SYSTEM OF THE 50 STATES, BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE, IS DISCUSSED, AND STATE RANKINGS ARE PRESENTED.

Abstract

THE RANKING SYSTEM COMBINES FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE COURT SYSTEM: CONSOLIDATION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF THE COURT STRUCTURE, CENTRALIZED RULEMAKING, CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT, AND CENTRALIZED BUDGETING AND STATE FINANCING. THE COURT STRUCTURE CONSOLIDATION AND SIMPLIFICATION INDICATORS USED FOR THE RANKING INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF TRIAL COURTS, THE EXISTENCE OF ONLY ONE COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION, THE EXISTENCE OF ONLY ONE COURT OF LIMITED OF JURISDICTION, AND THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIALIZED COURTS. INDICATORS OF CENTRALIZED RULEMAKING INCLUDE LOCATION OF RULEMAKING AUTHORITY (IDEALLY ONLY 1N THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT), LOCATION OF ACTUAL RULEMAKING AUTHORITY, THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF LEGISLATIVE VETO, AND THE ACTUAL UTILIZATION OF THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY. RANKING PARAMETERS OF CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT INCLUDE: ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURT PERSONNEL AND ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN INTERJURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF JUDGES; THE DEGREE TO WHICH STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS SUPERVISE TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATION; INVOLVEMENT OF THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR IN RESEARCH, INFORMATION DISSEMINATION, LONG-RANGE PLANNING, AND RESEARCH ASSISTANCE FOR THE STATE COURT SYSTEM; AND THE SYSTEM (MERIT OR NONMERIT) FOR THE RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, PROMOTION, AND REMOVAL OR AUXILIARY JUDICIAL PERSONNEL. FINALLY, THE INDICATORS FOR RANKING THE CENTRALIZATION OF BUDGETING AND STATE FINANCING ARE: DEGREE OF CENTRAL BUDGET PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND SUBMISSION, THE EXTENT OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH PARTICIPATION; THE EXISTENCE OF GUBERNATORIAL VETO IN THE BUDGETARY PROCESSES; AND STATE ASSUMPTION OF FUNDING REQUIREMENTS. RANKINGS OF THE 50 STATES FOR EACH OF THE FOUR MAJOR AREAS ARE PRESENTED IN TABULAR FORM. BASED ON TOTAL POINT RANKINGS FOR ALL FOUR AREAS, AN OVERALL RANKING OF COURT SYSTEM UNIFICATION WAS DONE. THE FOLLOWING STATES ARE RANKED FROM MOST TO LEAST UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM: HAWAII, COLORADO, IDAHO, RHODE ISLAND, MAINE, NORTH CAROLINA, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, MARYLAND, ILLINOIS, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, ARIZONA, FLORIDA, SOUTH DAKOTA, CONNECTICUT, WASHINGTON, DELAWARE, NEW JERSEY, NORTH DAKOTA, UTAH, IOWA, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, WISCONSIN, ALABAMA, KENTUCKY, KANSAS, VIRGINIA, NEBRASKA, OHIO, WYOMING, ARKANSAS, MONTANA MICHIGAN, NEVADA, MASSACHUSETTS, SOUTH CAROLINA, CALIFORNIA, INDIANA, OREGON, LOUISIANA, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW YORK, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, GEORGIA, MISSISSIPPI. THE SIGNIFICANT, IF ANY, OF THE RANKING FOR THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE ADMINISTERED IN STATES WITH HIGHLY UNIFIED OR NONUNIFIED SYSTEM IS DISCUSSED. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (JAP)