judicial court system
judicial court system: History of League Activity
The NYS League of Women Voters has had a long-standing advocacy position on court restructuring (formerly called court merger). The current system of 9 separate trial courts is confusing to litigants and costly to everyone involved in the courts: litigants, taxpayers, and the court system itself. Consolidation of the state’s trial courts requires a constitutional amendment, which needs passage by two separately elected legislatures, followed by an affirmative vote in the November general election. Traditionally, constitutional amendments receive first passage in the second year of the legislative session, followed by second passage of the newly elected legislature the following year. They then appear on the November ballot for voter approval. A court merger constitutional amendment actually received first passage in 1986, but was not passed by the legislature the following year, and it died before reaching the voters.
Efforts to restructure the current inefficient and costly system received new energy, when Chief Judge Judith Kaye appointed the “Commission on the Future of the Courts”. The commission’s recommendations to simplify the court structure into a two-tier system were introduced as a Governor’s program bill by the Senate Judiciary Chair in the spring of 2007. Unfortunately, no action was taken in 2008, the second year of the legislative session, which would have been the opportune time for first passage of a constitutional amendment, such as court restructuring. It was the year when Governor Spitzer resigned and the state began to see increasing fiscal pressures. In addition, Chief Judge Judith Kaye retired at the end of 2008, having reached her mandatory retirement age.
In 2009, no new efforts were made to address the need for restructuring via a constitutional amendment. The current Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, has not yet addressed the issue or advocated for it. Even though some of the most burdensome problems litigants face in the fractured courts have been addressed by administrative measures, e.g. the Integrated Domestic Violence Courts which can deal with all aspects of a case in one court, before one judge, or the other specialty ―problem-solving‖ courts, such as drug and mental health courts, a restructuring constitutional amendment continues to be the desirable long-term solution. Successful passage of such a constitutional amendment would help redistribute resources in favor of the most over-burdened courts, especially the Family Courts.
Although dealing with society‘s most pressing needs and the well-being of children, the current system still treats the Family Court like a ―step child‖, while the Supreme Court fares much better in allocated resources and staff compensation. Given the fact that New York State Chief Judge Lippman continued to omit any reference to court restructuring in his 2012 State of the Courts address, we anticipate no efforts to move forward with court restructuring. However, we continue to work with the Fund for Modern Courts on the issue.
Judicial court system: Summary of Current Action
The League is unaware of current plans within the Legislature to move forward on the court restructuring issue.
The League will continue to advocate for change, as opportunities arise, both individually and with its coalition partners such as the Fund for Modern Courts.
Judicial court system: Memos
Judicial court system: Letters, Press Releases, Op Ed Pieces, and Press Coverage
judicial court system: League Position
judicial court system: Non-League Written Materials
- Writing Reform
The Brennan Center, NYU School of Law, 2010 Revised Edition. This excellent report on developing campaign finance legislation contains a chapter on public finance of elections.
- Small Donor Matching Funds: The NYC Election Experience
The Brennan Center, NYU School of Law, 2010. This report details how the New York City matching system of campaign finance has invigorated grassroots participation in local elections.
- Electoral Competition and Low Contribution Limits,
The Brennan Center, NYU School of Law, 2009. This report shows how low campaign finance limits can increase competitiveness of elections.
- How Close is Fundraising in Contested Elections in States with Low Contribution Limits? Buchanan Center Political Economy, George Mason University, 2009
- The Effect of Public Financing on the Competitiveness of Elections
Buchanan Center Political Economy, George Mason University, 2009. A scholarly look at the extent to which public financing of elections increases competition.
- Do Low Contribution Limits Insulate Incumbents from Competition?
Buchanan Center Political Economy, George Mason University, 2009.
- Brennan Center's Analysis of Maine Senate Elections
The Brennan Center, NYU School of Law, 2009.
transparency: Archived Materials
Contact the League Office to request archived materials.