Opinion
Opinion Delivered January 13, 2005
In November 2000, the voters approved Amendment 80, which revamped the Judicial Article of the Arkansas Constitution and was effective July 1, 2001. Shortly thereafter, this court established the Amendment 80 Committee to oversee its implementation with respect to circuit court and district courts and to make recommendations to this court. See In Re: Appointment of Special Supreme Court Committee to be known as "Amendment 80 Committee," 343 Ark. Appx. 877 (2000).
Since the passage of Amendment 80, this court and the General Assembly have taken steps with respect to district courts to implement the amendment. For example, in 2002, we issued a per curiam order in which we announced this court's vision for the district courts. See In Re: Amended Supreme Court Statement on Limited Jurisdiction Courts Under Amendment 80, 351 Ark. Appx. (2002) (hereafter referred to as " Statement on Limited Jurisdiction Courts"). In 2003, the General Assembly passed Act 1727, which established the number of district courts and the number of judges to be elected in 2004 and established the territorial jurisdiction of the various district courts. In doing so, the General Assembly codified the principle we recommended in our Statement on Limited Jurisdiction Courts that "no district judge should have authority to act outside of the area from which he or she is elected." Id.
During the past year, the Amendment 80 Committee has devoted its attention entirely to district court issues. The committee recommended and we adopted an Administrative Order addressing district court administration and revised procedural rules governing district courts. See In Re: Adoption of Administrative Order Number 18 and Amendment of District Court Rules (Formerly Known As Inferior Court Rules) (December 9, 2004). On December 14, 2004, the committee concluded its recent work and reported its recommendations on a number of issues affecting district courts to the Supreme Court. These recommendations on specific issues, unlike the adoption of Administrative Order Number 18 and the District Court Rules, cannot be implemented by this court but require legislative action.
The members of the Committee were: then Chief Justice Betty C. Dickey, Chair, Circuit Judge Gary Arnold, Justice Robert L. Brown, Circuit Judge Ted Capeheart, Court of Appeals Judge Robert J. Gladwin, Justice Jim Hannah (current Chief Justice), Ronald D. Harrison, Esq., Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber, Jim L. Julian, Esq., Circuit Judge Jerry Mazzanti (now retired), Court of Appeals Judge Andree L. Roaf, District Judge David Saxon, District Judge David Stewart, and Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, John F. Stroud, Jr. (now retired).
Changes in the civil subject matter jurisdiction of district courts have been considered by the Amendment 80 Committee and the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has concluded that no changes will be made at this time although jurisdictional monetary limits and the types of cases heard will continue to be studied, as stated in Administrative Order 18.
We will discuss the recommendations as they have been presented to this court. What we said in the Statement on Limited Jurisdiction Courts is equally true today: "[T]he responsibility for implementation . . . is shared between the Supreme Court and the General Assembly. . . . These policy statements . . . are offered as a guide to insure consistency in the measures adopted by the judicial and legislative branches. . . ." 351 Ark. Appx. We turn to the specific recommendations.
Issue 1: Committee recommended unanimously the consolidation of city and district courts with district judges to hear cases at the location of the former city courts and with no changes to the distribution of revenues among the cities and/or counties.
We accept the committee's recommendation and adopt the recommendation as our own. In our Statement on Limited Jurisdiction Courts, we endorsed the elimination of city courts in order to streamline and make more efficient the administration of justice, and we remain committed to this principle.
Issue 2: Committee recommended unanimously the creation of full-time district judge positions to be paid by the state from general revenue.
Issue 3: Committee recommended (13 members in favor and 1 against) the establishment of a timetable and process for the incremental transfer of part-time district court positions paid by local government to full-time positions paid by the state. (A minimum of 20 positions by the 2005 General Assembly with additional positions by each General Assembly through the 2013 General Assembly).
We accept the committee's recommendations with respect to Issues 2 and 3 and adopt the recommendations as our own. In our Statement on Limited Jurisdiction Courts, we said:
While Amendment 80 does not require that district court judges serve in a full-time capacity it certainly contemplates that as the standard. . . . If the district court is to become a true third tier of the state court system it must be a full-time court served by full-time judges.
* To the extent that the number of cases within a county or district is sufficient to support a full caseload, district judges should serve on a full-time basis and should be prohibited from practicing law.
* To the extent that there is not a sufficient number of cases within a district or county to support a full caseload, two or more districts and/or counties should be combined for the purposes of creating an electoral district for the election of a full-time judge to serve the courts so designated.
The committee also reviewed proposals regarding the salaries of district judges and the funding of salaries. The committee took the following actions with respect to salary issues:
Issue 4 (a): There was not a majority vote in favor of specific, uniform salary recommendations for district judges as set out in draft legislation. (For: 6 members; Against: 3 members; Abstain: 5 members).
Issue 4 (b): Unanimously endorsed the revision of the current schedule of district judge salaries paid by cities and/or counties to a uniform and equitable system which is based primarily on the caseload of the court. Where such changes have the effect of lowering the salaries of any individual judges, the salaries of such judges shall remain unaffected and the new salary adopted upon the election/appointment of a successor judge.
Issue 5: There was not a majority vote to increase the civil filing fees in district courts by $15.00 to raise revenues for salaries. (For: 5 members; Against: 4 members; Abstain: 5 members).
With respect to Issues 4 and 5, we take no position regarding the specific salary amounts for district judges or the raising of filing fees in the district court, because we believe these are matters not within the purview of the Supreme Court. Ruiz v. Van Denton, 269 Ark. 331, 335, 602 S.W. 2d 625 (1980) (the question of adequate compensation is not a matter to be addressed by the court but is within the province of the legislature; setting of salaries is a matter left to the sound discretion of the General Assembly under the separation of powers doctrine of the Arkansas Constitution, Art. 4, § 2.); Cook v. Municipal Court of Pine Bluff, 287 Ark. 382, 699 S.W. 2d 741 (1985) (it is within the power of the Legislature to make reasonable provisions for payment of cost of litigation [filing fees] so as to help defray the expenses of the courts.).
While we take no position on specific salaries, we endorse a uniform and equitable system based primarily on the caseload of the specific district court. We have previously said:
Amendment 80 does not require the state funding of the court system. The stated public policy goal of the General Assembly, however, has been to move from local to state funding of the court system. State funding is essential to provide core judicial services which are both adequate and consistent throughout the state. In order to become a full partner in the state court system, a unified district court should be included within this public policy goal. It is not within the state's interest, however, to assume the responsibility for funding a system which is poorly structured and inefficient. The restructuring of the system and its funding by the state, therefore, go hand-in-hand. For example, it is not sound public policy for the state to enhance the current salary of district court judges without also considering the number of judges serving a county or district and whether they are serving on a full-time basis. Since the goal should be a move to a full-time judiciary, state funding should be utilized to enhance that goal.
* The state should assume the responsibility for the payment of the salary and retirement of full-time district court judges.
* The salary paid to full-time district court judges should be commensurate with their role and status as members of the state judiciary and relative to the state salaries paid to general jurisdiction and appellate court judges.
* The source of funding for full-time district court judges should be the same as that for general jurisdiction and appellate court judges.
* Local government should continue to fund the salary and retirement of part-time district court judges and the other costs of operating the district court.
Statement on District Courts, 351 Ark. Appx.
Much has been accomplished towards the implementation of Amendment 80. Work remains to be done, but through the continued efforts of the General Assembly and this Court, the goal of a unified court system can and will be achieved.