MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session February 2, 1995 The Senate Subcommittee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:40 a.m., on Thursday, February 2, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Dina Titus STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Craig Boersema, Executive Director, Urban Court Workload Assessment Commission, Supreme Court of Nevada Senator James indicated the subcommittee meeting was called regarding Judicial Assessment Commission recommendations concerning court structure. He referred to the outline submitted by Justice Rose of the Nevada Supreme Court on January 30, 1995, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. He indicated Craig Boersema was present to provide additional information regarding the proposed expansion of the Judicial Selection Commission. Craig Boersema, Executive Director, Urban Court Workload Assessment Commission, Supreme Court of Nevada, (hereafter "commission"), spoke to the subcommittee. Mr. Boersema indicated the reason the task force recommended expansion by six members of the Judicial Selection Commission was a belief it would be helpful to have more public citizen input into the selection of judges. He said this was part of the overall recommendation of the Nevada Plan, explained earlier. (See Minutes of Senate Committee on Judiciary, January 30, 1995). Mr. Boersema added the task force believed this expansion would help to depoliticize the process of judicial selection. In response to a question posed by Senator Titus, Mr. Boersema indicated an expansion of the Judicial Selection Commission could be accomplished without an overall approval of the Nevada Plan. Senator Porter asked if there was a recommendation regarding term limits. Mr. Boersema answered it was "briefly mentioned," although no specific recommendation was made in the report set forth as Exhibit D, which was provided to the full committee during the hearing of January 30, 1995. (Said report, entitled "Simplifying the Maze" is on file in the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Library, with the Minutes of January 30, 1995). He referred Senator Porter to page 14 of that report. Mr. Boersema added he believed it was the consensus of the commission that term limits should not apply to judges. Senator Porter indicated the commission should have been aware of the "mood of the constituents to encourage and enforce term limits," and asked if that was not discussed. He added, "To have one little sentence address term limits in a year's study, I find hard to accept." Mr. Boersema answered the commission "considered over 67 recommendations" and had a limited amount of time to look at the issues. He added the commission realized term limits was a very important issue, but they did not have the time to address the same, since "it was such a difficult issue." Senator Porter also pointed out that "accountability of judges" was not addressed in the report. Mr. Boersema answered if a judicial performance commission were established it would address both the matter of term limits and accountability. Senator James pointed out language in the report which stated, "Pay scales...[and other recommendations]...would provide the bench with experienced, knowledgeable judges and term limitations for judges would work against that philosophy." Senator James agreed, saying he believed term limitations "had some rather dubious consequences across the board." He asked Mr. Boersema if the recommendation for judicial selection was passed, providing a person would run for election to a judgeship, and if elected, would face "retention elections" thereafter, how many terms a judge could serve. Mr. Boersema answered a judge would run for one additional term under a retention system. Senator Porter questioned the language of the recommendation concerning when a judge would face the first retention election, pointing out the wording indicated a two- year time period. Mr. Boersema answered he would check with the chairman of the task force to clarify the language, prior to a bill draft being requested. Senator James stated he believed the committee's recommendation would be that a judge "serve until the next general election." Senator Titus confirmed an appointed judge would serve out the remaining term of whomever they replaced, then stand for a competitive, nonpartisan election, for a regular term, followed by a retention election. Mr. Boersema reiterated the judicial performance commission would come into play before the election for a second full term. Senator James suggested the committee should consider requesting a bill draft concerning the Judicial Selection Commission. Senator Porter asked if the matter of judges' salaries would be included in such a bill draft, and Mr. Boersema answered that would be a matter to be presented to the "money" committees. Senator James indicated the committee would not consider bill drafts on state funding for the court system, additional family court judges and the county clerk recommendations, which were included on Exhibit C. Senator James turned to the matter of a Nevada Judicial Council, set forth as section 4 of Exhibit C. He said he believed the earlier testimony indicated at this time there is "rather nebulous authority" with regard to the judicial system, and there was the need for more structure to set policies for the entire court system. Senator Titus asked if it was possible to consolidate authority by way of a judicial council, "without messing with funding." Mr. Boersema answered it would be possible, and the establishment of a council would be a step in the right direction. He said there would be some problems regarding administration of the local courts without funding. He said the commission felt as an overall package, state funding was important. Mr. Boersema stressed the commission's recommendation for consolidation of the municipal and justice courts. He added, "Even if they were in the same building, through co-location, it would be a first step towards consolidation." Mr. Boersema said once they were in the same building, it would be logical to establish one court with different departments. Senator Porter stated he would like to have input from the League of Cities and the League of Counties as to their view of such a consolidation. Senator James answered he was personally not interested in pursuing the recommendation for court consolidation at this time. Senator Porter indicated he did wish to talk to the representatives of the two leagues, however. Senator James stated his support of a bill draft request regarding a Nevada Judicial Council. He then indicated to the subcommittee members he would open the meeting for a vote regarding bill draft requests. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT REGARDING AN EXPANSION OF THE JUDICIAL SELECTION COMMISSION. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT REGARDING A NEVADA PLAN FOR JUDICIAL ELECTIONS. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT REGARDING A JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION COMMISSION. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEVADA JUDICIAL COUNCIL. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHIEF JUDGE WITH AUTHORITY AT EVERY COURT LEVEL. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator Porter referred to page 23 of Exhibit D, regarding court-annexed arbitration, and asked if the subcommittee would recommend preparation of a bill draft regarding the same. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT REGARDING COURT-ANNEXED ARBITRATION. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator James indicated once the bill drafts were prepared, they would be submitted to the full committee for a vote regarding introduction. Senator Titus thanked Senator James for entertaining motions for bill draft requests. She said, "So often, a task force will meet and write a report, and it goes on the shelf...I think it is good that so many of the recommendations will be considered...." Senator James indicated since so many of the recommendations involve constitutional amendments, he would look forward to the measures being presented to the voters. There being no further business to come before the subcommittee, Senator James closed the meeting at 9:15 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Subcommittee on Judiciary February 2, 1995 Page