Amends 31.7 of the Bylaws to read as follows:

Transcription

1 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 11-12, SPONSORS: Peter Bennett, Chair, Standing Committee on Judicial Independence; Michael H. Reed, Chair, Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements; Hon. Norma L. Shapiro, Immediate Past Chair, Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements; Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III and Stephen N. Zack, Co-Chairs, Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System; Dick Semerdjian, Chair, Commission on the American Jury Project. 1 PROPOSAL: Amends the Bylaws to eliminate the Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements and the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence as separate standing committees, and to combine them to create the Standing Committee on the American Judicial System, which shall include a Subcommittee on State Courts and a Subcommittee on Federal Courts. Amends 31.7 of the Bylaws to read as follows: Federal Judicial Improvements. The Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements, which consists of not more than eleven members, shall: (a) coordinate activities within the Association relating to improvements in the federal judicial system; (b) maintain effective liaison with other institutions working on judicial reform and with the federal judiciary and other appropriate government officials; and (c) study and make recommendations for improving the federal judicial system. Judicial Independence. The Standing Committee on Judicial Independence shall have eleven members and shall: (a) assist courts, administrative judiciaries and state, local and territorial bar associations in considering and effectuating responses to infringement of judicial independence; (b) encourage public awareness and appreciation of the importance of judicial independence and merit selection to the American judicial system and the rule of law; (c) make recommendations on ways to improve and enhance the institutional independence and efficiency of state, territorial and local judiciaries and encourage appropriate accountability to enhance judicial independence and the efficient administration of justice; and (d) act as a clearinghouse for the Association s activities dealing with the judicial independence of state, local and administrative judiciaries. Standing Committee on the American Judicial System. The Standing Committee on the American Judicial System shall consist of twenty-one members as described in paragraph (a) and 1 Additional sponsors include Erika E. Anderson, Vincent T. Chang, Hon. Rosalyn Woodson Frierson, Crista Hogan, Diane H. Kutzko, Hon. Steve Smith, Members, Standing Committee on Judicial Independence; Alan T. Dimond, Special Advisor, Standing Committee on Judicial Independence; Michael St. Patrick Baxter, Fern C. Bomchill, Helen B. Kim, Patrick McGlone, James M. Pearl, Robert O. Saunooke, Hon. Elizabeth S. Stong, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Hon. James A. Wynn, Jr., Members, Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements; Rudy A. Englund, Liaison to Standing Committee on Judicial Independence; Sidney Butcher, Liaison to Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements.

2 shall be composed of the Subcommittee on State Courts and the Subcommittee on Federal Courts, as described in paragraphs (c) (d). (a) The Standing Committee on the American Judicial System shall have twenty-one members appointed by the President. The members shall consist of a chair of the Standing Committee, who shall not be a currently serving judge, plus ten members designated as appointees to the Subcommittee on State Courts and ten members designated as appointees to the Subcommittee on Federal Courts. A majority of the members of each Subcommittee shall be non-judges. Annually, one non-judge member of each Subcommittee shall be designated by the President to serve as chair of that Subcommittee. The two chairs of the Subcommittees shall serve as vice-chairs of the Standing Committee. The chair of the Standing Committee and the two Subcommittee chairs shall comprise the executive committee of the Standing Committee. (b) The Standing Committee on the American Judicial System shall: (1) coordinate activities within the Association and act as a clearinghouse for the Association s activities relating to preservation and improvement of the judicial system, judicial independence and the preservation of fair and impartial courts, preservation of the American jury system, and methods of judicial selection and retention, including support of and coordination with the Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System and the Commission on the American Jury Project; (2) assist courts, administrative judiciaries, and bar associations to prepare for and respond to attacks on judicial independence, the ability of the courts to remain fair and impartial, and any other threats to the fair, impartial and efficient administration of justice; (3) support efforts to increase public understanding of the importance of fair and impartial courts, the role of the judicial branch, and other matters related to the fair and efficient administration of justice within American judicial systems; (4) make recommendations to improve and enhance the American judicial system, support and protect fair and impartial courts, and ensure adequate funding of the American judicial system; and (5) maintain liaison with other persons and organizations concerned with judicial reform, with the judiciary, and with other appropriate government officials and court-related entities. (c) The Subcommittee on State Courts shall: (1) carry out the mission of the Standing Committee with regard to state, local, and other non-federal American judicial systems; (2) support efforts to increase public understanding of judicial selection and retention methods and to increase informed citizen participation in states where judges are subject to election of any kind; (3) make recommendations regarding appropriate compensation for state and local judges, creation and filling of needed judgeships, and adequate funding of state and local judicial systems; and (4) work with state and local courts and bar associations and maintain liaison with other persons and organizations concerned with judicial reform related to state courts and judicial selection, with the Conference of Chief Justices, the National 2

3 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 11-12, Center for State Courts, and with other appropriate government officials and court-related entities. (d) The Subcommittee on Federal Courts shall: (1) carry out the mission of the Standing Committee with regard to the federal judicial system; (2) study, monitor, and make recommendations regarding (i) the appropriate compensation for federal judges, (ii) the adequacy of the number of federal judgeships, including authorization of additional judgeships and filling judicial vacancies, and (iii) the adequacy of the funding of the federal judicial system. (3) work and maintain liaison with the federal judiciary and other appropriate government officials and court-related entities to support and improve the fair and effective administration of justice in the federal judicial system; and (4) work with the ABA Governmental Affairs Office and maintain liaison with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Federal Judicial Center, and other persons and organizations concerned with judicial reform related to the federal judicial system. (e) Ex-Officio Members. The chair of the Standing Committee may designate the chair of any other ABA entity as an ex-officio member of the Standing Committee if the jurisdiction of the other entity closely aligns with that of the Standing Committee and if participation by the chair of the other entity as an ex-officio member will advance the mission of the Standing Committee. (f) Honorary Co-Chairs. Two Honorary Co-Chairs of the Standing Committee shall be invited by the executive committee of the Standing Committee to serve one-year renewable terms. One shall be a recently retired state Supreme Court Justice or Judge of a state s highest court of appeals. One shall be a retired federal court judge. The Honorary Co-Chairs shall have such duties as determined by the Chair.

4 I. Introduction REPORT The Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements ( SCFJI ) was established in at the suggestion of the Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger. For over four decades, SCFJI has filled a unique role within the Association by studying and making recommendations for improving the federal judicial system, maintaining close liaison with the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Federal Judicial Center, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, working closely with the Governmental Affairs Office in relation to all federal legislation which pertains to the federal judicial system, serving as a resource within the Association and to the officers of the Association on matters pertaining to the federal judiciary, representing the Association before legislative bodies on matters pertaining to the federal judicial system, and otherwise acting as the only entity within the Association that is exclusively devoted to preserving and improving the administration of justice in the federal courts. SCFJI was created at the suggestion of the Chief Justice because other Association entities, including the Judicial Division, were constrained by ethical rules and other limitations in their ability to affirmatively advocate certain policy positions concerning the federal courts and the administration of justice within the federal system. Because of SCFJI s composition, it is able to be an advocate on certain matters when other ABA entities comprised solely or predominately of judges are limited in their ability to speak. SCFJI s members are presidentially appointed and possess the necessary expertise and experience to fulfill SCFJI s mission. Since its creation, SCFJI has been the leading voice within the Association on issues related to federal judicial compensation, the authorization and filling of judgeships by Congress, all federal legislation impacting the federal courts including jurisdiction, funding, impeachment of federal judges, procedural rules, separation of powers, issues impacting those who work and practice in federal courts, and more. Although the Judicial Division, its National Conference of Federal Trial Judges, and many other entities within the Association are committed to supporting the federal courts, only SCFJI is able to be an affirmative advocate on certain important policy positions that impact the federal judiciary. The Standing Committee on Judicial Independence ( SCJI ) plays a similarly unique and important role within the Association. The Commission on Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence, which was created in 1996, laid the groundwork for what would ultimately become the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence. The Commission recommended that state, local, and territorial bar associations should develop mechanisms for responding to unfair attacks on judges, that research should continue into the causes of eroding confidence in the judicial systems throughout the country, that long-term educational programs should be developed and implemented, both in schools, and for the public generally, with strategies 2 The Special Committee on Coordination of Judicial Improvements was created by the Board of Governors in It became the Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements in

5 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 11-12, focused upon improving public understanding of the judicial system and the concept of an independent judiciary. Based upon these recommendations, SCJI was formed and its mission encompasses those recommendations and more. For nearly two decades, SCJI has strived to carry out its mission and serve as a resource to state and local courts and bar associations as they seek to preserve fair and impartial courts in their states. SCJI and SCFJI share many common values and priorities, and often support the work of each other, formally or informally. However, the missions of the two Standing Committees are very different as are the means of achieving their very different goals. In order to improve the administration of justice in the federal judicial system, SCFJI primarily focuses on federal legislation and rulemaking and Association policy directed towards Congress. SCJI s mission includes making policy recommendations to improve judicial independence and the administration of justice in state, local, and territorial courts. Some of these policy recommendations are aimed at state lawmakers, but many are not. Far more than its focus being on improving state courts rather than federal courts, SCJI s mission is unique and wholly separate from SCFJI s because SCJI s mission is focused on specific courts, bar associations, and the public. In addition to making policy recommendations, SCJI assists courts, administrative judiciaries, and state, local, and territorial bar associations in developing plans for responding to unfair attacks on judges and infringement upon judicial independence, encourages public awareness and appreciation of the importance of judicial independence and merit selection, and acts as a clearinghouse for the Association s activities dealing with judicial independence. SCJI has been the leading voice within the Association on issues related to judicial selection, the development of state-specific rules regarding judicial disqualification and disclosure, introductory judicial education, and other issues impacting the fair and impartial administration of justice in state courts, as well as the public perception of courts. Although there are many other entities within the Association that are concerned about threats to judicial independence, like SCFJI, SCJI is composed of individuals who are presidentially appointed and possess the expertise and experience to carry out SCJI s mission without the limitations that exist within sections and divisions. This Proposal amends the Bylaws to effectuate the combination of the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence and the Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements into a single Standing Committee on the American Judicial System ( Standing Committee ). It further proposes support of and coordination with the Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System ( Task Force ) and the Commission on the American Jury Project ( Jury Project ), because the jurisdiction of each of those entities is closely aligned with the jurisdiction and mission of the Standing Committee and will remain so. This proposal is made in response to the recommendation of the Committee on Scope and Correlation of Work ( Scope ) that SCFJI be eliminated and that its work be subsumed be SCJI. Scope s recommendation was submitted as Proposal 11-5 for consideration by the House of Delegates ( HOD ) at the 2013 Annual Meeting, but was withdrawn subject to the agreement by SCJI and SCFI to work together to recommend a plan to create a new single entity, with appropriate structure and subcommittees to address the issues that confront the state and federal judiciaries. 3 This Proposal sets forth a 3 Letter from Scope to Stephen J. Curley, Chair, Standing Committee on Constitution and Bylaws (June 5, 2013), withdrawing proposal to eliminate SCFJI.

6 structure for the combination of SCJI and SCFJI in a way that preserves their core missions and will allow their important work to continue. This Proposal also seeks to set forth the mission of the proposed Standing Committee in a way that will provide effective guidance as it strives to carry out the purposes and goals of the ABA as the coordinator and clearinghouse for Association activities related to preserving and enhancing the judicial system now and in the future. II. The Purposes and Goals of the ABA The missions of SCJI and SCFJI go to the heart of the purposes and goals of the Association. The purposes of the Association are to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States... to promote throughout the nation the administration of justice... to uphold the honor of the profession of law... to apply the knowledge and experience of the profession to the promotion of the public good... and to correlate and promote the activities of the bar organizations in the nation within these purposes and in the interests of the profession and of the public. 4 The ABA achieves its mission by working towards the objectives set forth in its four goals. Although SCJI and SCFJI aim to achieve the objectives of Goals I III, SCJI and SCFJI offer unique value to the Association as two of the few entities within the Association with missions aimed directly at Goal IV. Goal IV: Advance the Rule of Law. Objectives: 1. Increase public understanding of and respect for the rule of law, the legal process, and the role of the legal profession at home and throughout the world. 2. Hold governments accountable under law. 3. Work for just laws, including human rights, and a fair legal process. 4. Assure meaningful access to justice for all persons. 5. Preserve the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. 5 The missions of SCJI and SCFJI are of critical importance to carrying out the purposes of the Association and the objectives of Goal IV. This Proposal recognizes the importance of the missions of both SCJI and SCFJI, and aims to create a single, unified Standing Committee with a comprehensive mission. The combined jurisdictional statement sets forth the mission of the Subcommittee on State Courts, which will continue to carry out the work of SCJI, and the Subcommittee on Federal Courts, which will continue to carry out the work of SCFJI. In order to provide support of and coordination with the Task Force and the Jury Project, it is anticipated that the chairs of the Task Force and the Jury Project be included as ex-officio members of the Standing Committee, because the missions of the Task Force and the Jury Project are intimately connected to, interdependent on, and supportive of the missions of SCJI and SCFJI. By 4 ABA Constitution ABA Policies and Procedures, Chapter 1, Section A. The current version of the Association goals was adopted by the House of Delegates at the 2008 Annual Meeting. 3

7 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 11-12, including the chairs of the Task Force and the Jury Project as ex-officio members, it reflects that the Standing Committee is intended to engage in coordinated efforts to preserve and improve the judicial system within the context of a cohesive Standing Committee with an overarching mission statement. The creation of a single Standing Committee with a comprehensive jurisdictional statement will ensure that the ABA is equipped to be the national voice on issues impacting fair and impartial courts. Those issues include, but are not limited to: court funding, unfair attacks on judges and the role of the judicial branch, institutional threats to constitutional rights such as legal representation, jury trials, and Due Process, methods of judicial selection, judicial elections, judicial compensation, creation and filling of judgeships, ethical issues affecting the judicial branch, limitations on access to courts, judicial administration, and public perception and understanding of the courts. In addition, the unified Standing Committee will be well positioned to act as a clearinghouse and coordinator within the Association of activities dealing with fair and impartial courts and protection of judicial independence. The increased coordination of efforts will allow the Standing Committee, and the Association, to have the most significant impact and advance initiatives most beneficial to the rule of law and the administration of justice. III. Historical Foundation of the Standing Committee The first iteration of the Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements was created in 1971, and the first iteration of the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence was created in SCFJI and SCJI have existed as Standing Committees since 1983 and 1999 respectively. Their longstanding status as standing committees reflects the Association s long history of prioritizing the protection of the independence of the judiciary, including judicial compensation, judicial review, and other related issues. Based upon the recommendations of the Governmental Affairs Office and the Special Committee on Governmental Affairs concerning ABA Legislative and Governmental Priorities, the Board of Governors approved the inclusion of Independence of the Judiciary as one of the ABA s Legislative and Governmental Priorities from From , priorities were more specific and included such things as Federal Judicial Compensation, Judicial Immunity, and Judicial Review. SCFJI and SCJI have been integral to carrying out these ABA priorities over the last four decades. A. Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements In 1971, the Board of Governors created the Special Committee 7 on Coordination of Judicial Improvements to study proposals for improving the federal judicial system. 8 Then ABA 6 Board of Governors Minutes, Feb. 1991; Jan. 1992; Feb. 1993; Feb. 1994; Feb. 1995; Feb. 1996; Jan. 1997; Jan. 1998; Feb. 1999; Feb. 2000; Feb. 2001; Jan. 2002; Feb. 2003; Feb. 2004; Feb. 2005; Feb. 2006; Feb. 2007; Feb. 2008; Feb. 2010; Feb. 2011; Feb From , Protection of the Independence of the Judiciary was included as a priority and from , Independence of the Judiciary was included as a priority. In 2009, the independence of the judiciary was not included as a priority. 7 Special Committees shall investigate and study immediate or nonrecurring matters relating to the purposes or business of the Association. Unless it is continued by the House, a special

8 President Leon Jaworski explained that Chief Justice [Burger] had convinced him... that a special committee was needed. 9 The resolution recommending the creation of the Special Committed provided that: Resolved, That a Special Committee for Coordination of Judicial Improvements be created to study proposals for improving the federal judicial system.... The Special Committee will provide a coordinating body within the Association on improvements in the federal judicial system and will maintain close liaison with the Judicial Conference, the Federal Judicial Center, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and other institutions working in the field of judicial reform. It will work closely with the Association s Washington Office staff in relation to congressional proposals pertaining to the federal judiciary. The Committee will serve as a conduit to facilitate informal exchanges between the Association and its officers on the one hand and the federal judiciary and government officials on the other. Further Resolved, That the Special Committee is authorized, within its discretion, to represent the Association before legislative bodies or other tribunals to present the views of the Association on matters pertaining to improvements in the federal judicial system after the Association s position has been determined. 10 In 1973, its jurisdiction was amended to provide that, The Special Committee on Coordination of Judicial Improvements will work closely with the Association s Washington staff in relation to Congressional proposals pertaining to the federal judiciary considering all federal legislation which pertains to the entire federal justice system. 11 When this revision was proposed, The Chairman reminded the Board that the Committee on Coordination of Judicial Improvements is relatively new although it is nevertheless one of the most important committees of the Association. Its jurisdiction, as spelled out in the resolution creating it, was necessarily broad and all-encompassing. 12 At the time, other entities existed with similar areas of focus, such as the Standing Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure and Compensation. Therefore, part of the reason for emphasizing the broad scope of the Special Committee s jurisdiction was to reflect that the Special Committee was supposed to coordinate the Association s efforts to bring about improvements in judicial administration through congressional legislation. 13 The Special Committee s name was changed in 1977 to the Special Committee on Coordination of Federal Judicial Improvements to better reflect the work of the committee, which focused on committee terminates upon the adjournment of the first annual meeting after its creation. ABA Bylaws Board of Governors Minutes, October Id. 10 Id. 11 Board of Governors Minutes, August (Emphasis added to show the amendment). 12 Board of Governors Minutes, May Board of Governors Minutes, August

9 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 11-12, the federal judiciary. 14 The ABA s Bylaws were amended in August 1983 to create the Standing Committee 15 on Federal Judicial Improvements. SCFJI s jurisdictional statement remained unchanged from that established for the Special Committee in B. Standing Committee on Judicial Independence The Commission on Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence was created in The Commission prepared a report entitled An Independent Judiciary, which was released July 4, 1997, and distributed at the 1997 Annual Meeting. The Commission s recommendations, as well as much of its underlying research, formed the basis for the creation of SCJI. Its recommendations included: 2. State, local and territorial bar associations should develop effective mechanisms for evaluating and, when appropriate, promptly responding to misleading criticism involving judges and judicial decisions;... FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association should take the lead in the formation of a consortium of organizations dedicated to an independent judiciary and impartial system of equal justice to (a) continue research into the causes of eroding confidence in the judicial and justice systems throughout the country; and (b) develop and implement long-term educational programs, both in the schools, as well as for the public generally, with defined goals and strategies focused upon improving public understanding of our system of justice and within it the vital concept of an independent judiciary. 17 After the release of the report, the Commission was dissolved and replaced by the Special Committee on Judicial Independence, Selection, Tenure and Compensation. 18 This Special Committee was designed to focus on issues impacting state courts, because the Commission had found state courts were where many of the threats to judicial independence were most acute. During the drafting of the jurisdictional statement for the Special Committee, SCFJI offered revisions to ensure that the Special Committee s jurisdiction would not overlap with the mandate 14 Board of Governors Minutes, February Standing Committees shall investigate and study continuing or recurring matters related to the purposes or business of the Association. 16 Commissions shall investigate and study specific matters relating to the purposes or business of the Association. Unless it is continued by the House, a commission terminates upon the adjournment of the first annual meeting after its creation. ABA Bylaws MY At the time, a Standing Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure, and Compensation existed in the Bylaws, but it was not active and did not receive funding as of the 1996 Annual Meeting. To avoid confusion, it was formally eliminated at the 1998 Annual Meeting in anticipation of the Special Committee on Judicial Independence seeking standing committee status in AM

10 of SCFJI with respect to the study and evaluation of the federal judiciary. 19 SCFJI also recommended that the Special Committee and SCFJI coordinate their judicial independence activities. The jurisdictional statement approved by the Board of Governors for the Special Committee on Judicial Independence provided that: The Committee shall: assist courts, administrative judiciaries and state, local and territorial bar associations in considering and effectuating responses to infringement of judicial independence; encourage public awareness and appreciation of the importance of judicial independence and merit selection to the American judicial system and the rule of law; make recommendations on ways to improve and enhance the institutional independence and efficiency of state, territorial and local judiciaries and encourage appropriate accountability to enhance judicial independence and the efficient administration of justice; and act as a clearinghouse for the Association s activities dealing with the judicial independence of state, local and administrative judiciaries. 20 In 1999, the Board of Governors recommended to the House of Delegates that the Special Committee be sunset, subject to approval of a proposal to create the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence. At the 1999 Annual Meeting, the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence was created by amendment to Section 31.7 of the ABA Bylaws. The report that accompanied the proposal to create SCJI noted that, Amendment of the Association s Bylaws to designate a Standing Committee on Judicial Independence is consistent with Association Goal XI and will demonstrate the Association s ongoing commitment to an independent judiciary. 21 Except for the addition of a Special Advisor in 2002, the jurisdictional statement of SCJI has remained the same since C. Commission on the American Jury Project The Commission on the American Jury was created by the Board of Governors in 2003 to provide leadership and strategic direction to the ABA in advocating, promoting, and improving the jury system in America. 22 The Board of Governors also created the Special Working Group on Jury Standards to examine and recommend a single set of ABA standards and report to the Commission. 23 In 2004, the name of the Special Working Group on Jury Standards was changed to the American Jury Project. 24 At that time, the Board of Governors also created the Advisory Committee to the American Jury Project, which was comprised of appointees from outside organizations involved in jury-related matters, to provide comment on draft standards to 19 Board of Governors Minutes, July Id AM Board of Governors Minutes, November Id. 24 Board of Governors Minutes, June

11 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 11-12, the American Jury Project during the jury symposium scheduled for October The first National Symposium on the American Jury System was held at Washington & Lee University in October 2004 to address the draft jury standards, after which the American Jury Project prepared and recommended jury standards for consideration by the House of Delegates. 26 In February 2005, the House of Delegates adopted the ABA Principles for Juries and Jury Trials. 27 Following the adoption of the Principles, the American Jury Project began developing a trial innovation pilot project in the Seventh Federal Circuit. 28 The Seventh Circuit Jury Project Commission was formed in the summer of 2005, and from October 2005 through April 2008, the Seventh Circuit Bar Association took the lead in testing the usefulness and benefits, if any, of putting the Principles into action. 29 The Seventh Circuit American Jury Project issued its final report in September At the request of then ABA President Robert J. Grey Jr., in August 2005, the Board of Governors created the Commission on the American Jury Project as the successor entity to the Commission on the American Jury and the American Jury Project. 30 The new entity would promote and expand upon the policy work of the American Jury Project by advancing, refining, and updating the ABA Principles [for] Juries and Jury Trials and reach out to the public, interest groups, the legal profession, and others regarding the importance of jury service and jury improvement. 31 Since that time, the Jury Project has been comprised of thirteen members including the chair. The chair is appointed by the ABA President-Elect, and the Criminal Justice Section, Judicial Division, Section of Litigation, and the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section appoint three members each. Its mission is to: (1) promote and expand upon the policy work of the American Jury Project by advancing, refining, and updating the ABA Principles Relating to Juries and Jury Trials to courts, rulemaking bodies, state legislatures, and the organized bar, and further refining the principles as warranted; and (2) reach out to the public, third party interest groups, government officials, national media, and the legal profession as a whole regarding the importance of jury service and jury improvement. 32 Reviewing, updating, and promoting the Principles has remained a central purpose of the Jury Project. Most recently, amendments to the Principles were adopted at the 2013 Midyear Meeting Id. 26 Board of Governors Minutes, November 2004, Status Report of H. Thomas Wells, Jr., liaison to the Commission on the American Jury MY Board of Governors Minutes, February Seventh Circuit American Jury Project, Final Report, September Board of Governors Minutes, August Id. 32 ABA Policies and Procedures, Chapter 4, Section II(C) MY 106.

12 In October 2006, the National Symposium on the American Jury System was held at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in Dallas, Texas. The United States Postal Service unveiled its Jury Duty Stamp on October 27, 2006 during the Symposium to be made available to the public in September In February 2007, the Board of Governors approved the establishment of the annual Jury Innovation Award to honor an individual or group that has made significant contributions to the preservation and strengthening of the American jury system. 34 In October 2008, the National Symposium on the American Jury System was held at Fordham University in New York, New York, and in 2010, it was held at George Washington University School of Law in Washington, DC. In 2012, the Symposium was held at Northwestern University School of Law, in Chicago, Illinois, and focused on challenges faced by the modern jury and how the jury trial can be enhanced with modern jury procedures. Planning is currently underway for the 2014 National Symposium on the American Jury System, which will be held at the University of San Diego Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice in San Diego, California. To the extent the mission of the Jury Project involves public outreach and working with governmental officials, courts, and other persons and organizations concerned with the preservation and improvement of the jury system, coordination with the work of the Standing Committee will enhance the ability of both entities to carry out their missions effectively and best allow the ABA to be the national voice on issues relating to jury service and the jury system. Not only are the public outreach and liaison functions of the Standing Committee and the Jury Project interrelated and complementary, but the underlying basis for the existence of the Jury Project goes to the mission of the Standing Committee. The jury system is fundamental to the American judicial system. However, fewer and fewer cases go to trial each year, members of the public routinely seek to avoid jury service, the integrity of trials is increasingly threatened by juror misconduct, the venire in many jurisdictions continues to be unrepresentative of the community, courts lack resources to improve juror utilization, and, even when jury instructions are clear, jurors often lack understanding of the judicial system as a whole. D. Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System The Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System was created by then ABA President Stephen N. Zack as one of his four core initiatives for the year, with the mission and intent to develop recommendations and strategies to address the underfunding of the justice system. 35 The following year, President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III continued the Task Force as one of his presidential initiatives. During its first two years, the bipartisan Task Force was cochaired by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies. William K. Weisenberg, SCJI Chair, and Mary McQueen, President of the National Center for State Courts ( NCSC ), served as Vice Chairs of the Task Force. The creation of the Task Force followed the creation of the Justice is the Business of Government Task Force ( JBiz ) by the executive committee of the Board of Governors in September 2009 at the request of SCJI. SCJI made this request following the ABA Presidential Summit in May 2009 that was sponsored by the ABA Commission on Fair and Impartial State Courts and the National Center for State Courts. The Task Force and JBiz 34 Board of Governors Minutes, February ABA Policies and Procedures, Chapter 4, Section II(C). 9

13 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 11-12, worked together closely, and the membership of both entities overlapped significantly. Since , the work of the Task Force has continued as an independently functioning and separately funded subcommittee of SCJI, co-chaired by recent ABA Presidents Stephen N. Zack and Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III. Current ABA President James R. Silkenat has made court funding one of his primary areas of focus for Between February 2011 and August 2012, the Task Force held several hearings and forums and members offered testimony in other venues. In the fall of 2012, the Task Force issued its Proposed Next Steps, which it sought to implement beginning in Pursuant to the Proposed Next Steps report, in , the Task Force focused its efforts at the state bar level. The Task Force worked with Kentucky to institute an ABA Day-type event in February 2013, which led to the legislature approving $28.1 million in bond funding for a long-needed electronic case and docket management system. The Kentucky initiative is likely to be expanded in 2014, and the Task Force continues to seek opportunities to assist other states in developing similar initiatives. As part of implementation, members of the Task Force have continued to speak to bar associations throughout the country about the court funding crisis. Most recently, in October 2013, Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III presented Supporting Our Courts! to the Southern Conference of Bar Presidents and Partnering for the Preservation of the Justice System to the New England Bar Association. The Task Force hopes to participate in the Western States Bar Conference in March The Task Force is also working with the National Center for State Courts, and expects to participate in regional meetings of the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conferences of State Court Administrators during the coming year. The Task Force recently unveiled an electronic Toolkit for State Court Funding, which can be accessed through the ABA Office of the President s webpage. The Toolkit provides some of the latest information on strategies to use as courts and bar associations seek improved court funding in their state or locality, as well as some of the best practices nationally, and helpful principles for judicial administration. In addition to raising awareness about the underfunding of the judicial system and providing resources to courts and bar associations, the Task Force has been active in developing ABA policy related to court funding. At the 2011 Annual Meeting, the House of Delegates adopted Resolution 302, which calls upon state, territorial, and local bar associations to document and publicize the impact of funding cutbacks to the justice systems in their jurisdictions and to create coalitions to respond to the ramifications of court funding shortages. It also calls upon state, territorial, and local governments to recognize their constitutional responsibilities to adequately fund their justice systems, to develop principles to provide for stable levels of funding, and to identify and engage in best practices related to court administration. Finally, Resolution 302 urges courts and bar associations to develop strategies to communicate the value of adequate court funding to public officials. At the 2013 Annual Meeting, the Task Force sponsored resolution 10C, which urges all federal, state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt laws and policies that ensure full and adequate court funding. Resolution 10C also adopts the Principles for Judicial Administration, and recommends it as appropriate guidance for those states desiring to establish principles for judicial administration in their efforts to restructure court services and secure adequate court funding.

14 The important work of the Task Force must remain a priority of the Association, because adequate court funding is fundamental to the preservation of fair and impartial courts, the administration of justice, access to justice, and advancing and protecting the rule of law. Whether the Task Force continues as a presidential initiative, and independent entity, or a subcommittee of the Standing Committee, its work is inextricably linked to that of the Standing Committee, which is why including the chair of the Task Force as an ex-officio member of the Standing Committee will help advance the goals of both entities, ensure coordination of activities, and assist the Association in being a meaningful voice on behalf of the American judicial system. E. The proposed structure of the Standing Committee will allow it to continue to build upon the important legacies of SCFJI and SCJI Since their inception, SCFJI and SCJI have both been valuable entities within the Association. SCFJI and SCJI have strong records of proposing policy that goes to the core purposes and goals of the ABA, studying issues that are central to the preservation of fair and impartial courts, instituting projects designed to increase public understanding and respect for the role of the judicial branch, and ensuring that the Association has the ability to be a national voice on key issues impacting the judiciary. Each entity relies on the specialized knowledge of its members and the unique relationships those members have with the stakeholders most relevant to the missions of their respective committees. The members of SCFJI and SCJI necessarily possess different qualifications, despite the commonalities. Therefore, it is important that the combined Standing Committee consist of a Subcommittee on State Courts and a Subcommittee on Federal Courts, with members specially designated to serve on each. It is also essential that a chair be designated for each Subcommittee so someone with specialized expertise can guide the work of each Subcommittee, subject to the coordination and oversight of the chair of the Standing Committee. The Jury Project and the Task Force have equally vital, if more narrow, goals that are essential to the preservation of the American judicial system. Including the chairs of the Jury Project and the Task Force as ex-officio members of the Standing Committee will ensure coordination of efforts, facilitate development of projects, programs, and policy that is comprehensive in scope, and increase the ability of each entity to achieve its mission. The proposed structure and membership is consistent with Scope s recommendations that precipitated this proposal. IV Recommendations of the Committee on Scope and Correlation of Work The impetus for this proposal was the recommendation of the Committee on Scope and Correlation of Work in February Prior to that time, SCJI and SCFJI each had a long history of supporting the work of the other, and seeking opportunities to collaborate, but each functioned independently. Although the substantive work of SCJI and SCFJI is distinct, each recognizes the interdependence of state and federal courts and the importance of supporting and improving courts at all levels. SCJI and SCFJI have routinely co-sponsored the programs of the other to reach larger audiences. SCJI and SCFJI have also occasionally presented programming jointly, because the subject matter was relevant to the mission of both. Similarly, SCJI and SCFJI have often co-sponsored resolutions of the other, when appropriate. Although SCJI and SCFJI have often found opportunities to collaborate on programs and policy initiatives, they 11

15 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES AUGUST 11-12, have rarely undertaken joint projects, because the projects are specifically designed to carry out the discrete missions of each committee. It was against this backdrop of longstanding mutual support that SCFJI was scheduled for review by Scope in May In addition, the Coordinating Council of the Justice Center was also scheduled for review at that time. Following its initial review, Scope deferred making final recommendations until its December 2012 meeting, at which time it decided to do a comprehensive review of SCJI, SCFJI, the Coordinating Council of the Justice Center, and the Judicial Division, including all of the conferences of the Judicial Division. Following its review, on February 1, 2013, Scope advised SCJI, SCFJI, and the Coordinating Council of the Justice Center of its conclusions and recommendations. With regard to its review of SCJI, the conclusion was that, Scope commends the SCJI for its good work. With regard to its review of SCFJI, the conclusion was: Scope concluded that although, the SCFJI oversees worthy programs and projects, the majority of their projects and programs are cosponsored with conferences of the Judicial Division or the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence ( SCJI ). Therefore, Scope agreed most of the SCFJI s work could be subsumed by other ABA entities; and falls within the jurisdiction of other entities such as the SCJI and the Division for Public Education. In addition to the substantive changes recommended by Scope, it also recommended increasing the size of SCJI to account for the inclusion of the Task Force and to allow the SCJI to handle all of the issues pertaining to state or federal issues that the Judicial Division cannot handle. Scope recommended that the size be increased to 16 members, plus a chair (plus the members of the Task Force), which would currently equal 24 total members. With that recommendation as a starting point, this Proposal sets forth the exact membership of the Standing Committee to ensure that members with appropriate expertise are appointed so that each Subcommittee will be equally situated and capable of carrying out its mission. With regard to its review of the Coordinating Council of the Justice Center, the conclusion was: After much deliberation and discussion, Scope agreed that there is little to distinguish the Justice Center from the Judicial Division, except to the extent that the Standing Committees on Judicial Independence, and Federal Judicial Improvements are housed within the Justice Center. Scope understands the Coordinating Council is charged to ensure coordination of the activities of the entities within the Justice Center. Nonetheless, Scope also understands: 1) staff works within all of the entities; 2) the members of the entities have an excellent working relationship, communicating to each other often, and coordinating and cooperating on all projects and programs. Therefore,

16 Scope has concluded that the need for a stand alone Coordinating Council is minimal. Consistent with its recommendation that the Coordinating Council of the Justice Center be eliminated, Scope recommended that, SCJI serve as an oversight committee that houses a subcommittee on federal judicial funding and improvement, a subcommittee (the Task Force) on adequate funding for state courts, as well as the current subcommittees. Scope also suggested that the Judicial Division or the SCJI examine ways to create a mechanism for coordination of judicial related projects and programs across ABA Sections, Divisions and Committees. There was no appeal of the recommendation to eliminate the Coordinating Council of the Justice Center, and it was sunset at the conclusion of the 2013 Annual Meeting. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that coordination of efforts is essential, as is reflected in this Proposal. SCFJI and SCJI both submitted appeals of the recommendation to eliminate SCFJI and have its work subsumed by SCJI. Following those appeals, in May, 2013, a meeting took place at which it was unanimously agreed that the Standing Committees on Federal Judicial Improvements and Judicial Independence would continue as separate entities until the conclusion of the 2014 Annual Meeting, with the understanding that... the two committees would work together to recommend a plan to create a new single entity, with appropriate structure and subcommittees to address the issues that confront the state and federal judiciaries. 36 This Proposal is the plan that has been jointly developed in response to Scope s original recommendations and the subsequent agreement to create a new single entity, with appropriate structure and subcommittees. V. Structure and Support Required for the Standing Committee to Fulfill Its Mission A. Standing Committee and Subcommittee Membership A combined Standing Committee with appropriate structure and subcommittees requires appropriate and adequate operational support. To ensure that the Standing Committee receives the requisite operational support, it is important to consider its membership, and how those members will carry out their duties. The proposed Standing Committee will consist of 21 members, plus at least two ex-officio members, and will be composed of two Subcommittees, each of which will be responsible for implementation of discrete policies, projects, and programs. It is suggested that the existing members of SCJI and SCFJI whose terms on those committees would not have expired in 2014 continue as members of the appropriate Subcommittee, so that the Standing Committee can benefit from their institutional knowledge as well as their substantive expertise. New members should be appointed as appropriate so that approximately the same number of members complete their terms on the Standing Committee each year. The current Chairs of SCJI and SCFJI will both complete their terms at the conclusion of the 2014 Annual Meeting. Therefore, it is recommended that when the President- Elect appoints the Chairs of each Subcommittee, as well as the Chair of the Standing Committee, appointments be made with the expectation that one will serve a 1-year term, one will serve a 2- year term, and one will serve a 3-year term, so that a staggered three-year rotation will be 36 Letter from Scope to Stephen J. Curley, Chair, Standing Committee on Constitution and Bylaws (June 5, 2013), withdrawing proposal to eliminate SCFJI. 13