About the League
Where We Stand
Donate
Join Us
Pay Dues
Contact LWVAL
Contact a Local League
Baldwin Co.
Greater Birmingham
East Alabama
Mobile
Montgomery
Greater Tuscaloosa
Visit us on Facebook and become a Fan!
Quick Links for CitizensVoting & Elections
Register to vote
Find Your Polling Place
Restore your voting rights
"About the Help America Vote Act" (pdf)
Vote411.org
Read more
State Legislature & Congress
Who Speaks for You?
Find State Legislation & Take Action
The AL Legislature: Facts & Issues
Courts
"The Courts and Judicial Selection in AL" (pdf)
Environment
Environmental Management in AL: Facts & Issues
The State of Climate Change (LWVUS)
The Alabama Constitution
Resources on Constitutional Reform in AL
Judicial Qualifications & Selection
LWVAL Action Priority Level II - Monitoring occurs; action dependent on opportunity and available resources.Click a bill to see sponsor(s), summary (including link to full text), League action and justification for that action, and progress of the bill through the legislative progress. Inclusion of a bill in this list does not necessarily indicate LWVAL support. The League's position, if any, is noted under League Action & Justification.
Indicates change from previous week's report such as new progress in the legislature and/or League action. These updates are in green font.LWVAL has taken a position on these bills.
HB 4 - Supreme Court Associate Justices, appellate, circuit, and district judges, election from districts, const. amend.
Sponsor(s): Rep. Joseph Mitchell
Summary/Synopsis: This bill provides for the creation of judicial districts for all courts, including the appellate courts, and election of judges by those districts.
League Action & Justification: LWVAL opposes HB 4. League position calls for merit selection which is a step away from popular election of judges based on our recognition that the judicial branch plays a different role from the legislative and should be accountable for upholding the law rather than being responsive to the popular opinion of a specific constituency. The process proposed in these bills could exacerbate the evils of our present system of electing judges, potentially limit the flexibility of the court system to efficiently allocate resources, and be administratively cumbersome. On a practical level, it would take enormous legislative time to draw up the new districts.
Bill Progress in the Legislature: 1st reading: 1/12/10 and assigned to
Summary/Synopsis: This bill provides for the creation of judicial districts for all courts, including the appellate courts, and election of judges by those districts.
League Action & Justification: LWVAL opposes HB 4. League position calls for merit selection which is a step away from popular election of judges based on our recognition that the judicial branch plays a different role from the legislative and should be accountable for upholding the law rather than being responsive to the popular opinion of a specific constituency. The process proposed in these bills could exacerbate the evils of our present system of electing judges, potentially limit the flexibility of the court system to efficiently allocate resources, and be administratively cumbersome. On a practical level, it would take enormous legislative time to draw up the new districts.
Bill Progress in the Legislature: 1st reading: 1/12/10 and assigned to
HB 28 - Counties in which a Class 2 municipality is located, circuit and district judges, election from districts, const. amend.
Sponsor(s): Rep. Joseph Mitchell
Summary/Synopsis: This bill provides that in a county in which a Class 2 municipality is located, the circuit judges and district judges would be elected from districts. (Class 2 municipality is one in which the population is 175,000 to 299,999)
League Action & Justification: LWVAL opposes HB 28. League position calls for merit selection which is a step away from popular election of judges based on our recognition that the judicial branch plays a different role from the legislative and should be accountable for upholding the law rather than being responsive to the popular opinion of a specific constituency. The process proposed in this bill could exacerbate the evils of our present system of electing judges, potentially limit the flexibility of the court system to efficiently allocate resources, and be administratively cumbersome. On a practical level, it would take enormous legislative time to draw up the new districts.
Bill Progress in the Legislature: 1st reading: 1/12/10 and assigned to
Summary/Synopsis: This bill provides that in a county in which a Class 2 municipality is located, the circuit judges and district judges would be elected from districts. (Class 2 municipality is one in which the population is 175,000 to 299,999)
League Action & Justification: LWVAL opposes HB 28. League position calls for merit selection which is a step away from popular election of judges based on our recognition that the judicial branch plays a different role from the legislative and should be accountable for upholding the law rather than being responsive to the popular opinion of a specific constituency. The process proposed in this bill could exacerbate the evils of our present system of electing judges, potentially limit the flexibility of the court system to efficiently allocate resources, and be administratively cumbersome. On a practical level, it would take enormous legislative time to draw up the new districts.
Bill Progress in the Legislature: 1st reading: 1/12/10 and assigned to
LWVAL is monitoring this bill.
HB 542 - Judges, circuit, district, appellate, and Supreme Court Justices, nonpartisan election, special ballot for state judicial candidates, filing fee
Sponsor(s): Rep. Jeff McLaughlin
Summary/Synopsis: Under existing law, candidates for circuit or district court judgeships are nominated by political parties and are included on the general election ballots in a column under the party name and emblem.
This bill would provide for the nonpartisan election of candidates for circuit and district court judgeships, would provide for a filing fee to be paid by the candidates to be deposited into the State General Fund, and would provide for filing with the Secretary of State an affidavit of indegency in lieu of payment of the filing fee.
League Action & Justification: LWVAL is monitoring HB 542. The League does not have a specific position supporting nonpartisan election but is generally opposed to the partisan election of judges. The League does support merit selection.
Bill Progress in the Legislature: 2/11/2010: 1st reading and referred to Was listed for consideration by C&E at committee meeting on 3/24/2010, Room 603, 9 a.m.
Summary/Synopsis: Under existing law, candidates for circuit or district court judgeships are nominated by political parties and are included on the general election ballots in a column under the party name and emblem.
This bill would provide for the nonpartisan election of candidates for circuit and district court judgeships, would provide for a filing fee to be paid by the candidates to be deposited into the State General Fund, and would provide for filing with the Secretary of State an affidavit of indegency in lieu of payment of the filing fee.
League Action & Justification: LWVAL is monitoring HB 542. The League does not have a specific position supporting nonpartisan election but is generally opposed to the partisan election of judges. The League does support merit selection.
Bill Progress in the Legislature: 2/11/2010: 1st reading and referred to Was listed for consideration by C&E at committee meeting on 3/24/2010, Room 603, 9 a.m.
HB 620 - Provides for the nonpartisan election of candidates for circuit and district court judgeships, would provide for a filing fee to be paid by the candidates to be deposited into the State General Fund, and would provide for filing with the Secretary of State an affidavit of indigency in lieu of payment of the filing fee.
Sponsor(s): Rep. Charles O. Newton
Summary/Synopsis: Under existing law, candidates for state judicial offices, including the offices of Chief Justice and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge of the Court of Civil Appeals, circuit court judge, and district court judge, are nominated by political parties and are included on the general election ballots in a column under the party name and emblem.
This bill would provide for the nonpartisan election of candidates for state judicial office. The bill would require a special ballot for state judicial candidates. The bill would provide for a filing fee to be paid by candidates for state judicial office to the Secretary of State, to be split between the parties. The bill would provide for filing with the Secretary of State an affidavit of indigency in lieu of payment of the filing fee.
League Action & Justification: LWVAL is monitoring HB 620. The League does not have a specific position supporting nonpartisan election but is generally opposed to the partisan election of judges. The League does support merit selection.
Bill Progress in the Legislature: 2/23/2010: 1st reading and referred to
Summary/Synopsis: Under existing law, candidates for state judicial offices, including the offices of Chief Justice and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge of the Court of Civil Appeals, circuit court judge, and district court judge, are nominated by political parties and are included on the general election ballots in a column under the party name and emblem.
This bill would provide for the nonpartisan election of candidates for state judicial office. The bill would require a special ballot for state judicial candidates. The bill would provide for a filing fee to be paid by candidates for state judicial office to the Secretary of State, to be split between the parties. The bill would provide for filing with the Secretary of State an affidavit of indigency in lieu of payment of the filing fee.
League Action & Justification: LWVAL is monitoring HB 620. The League does not have a specific position supporting nonpartisan election but is generally opposed to the partisan election of judges. The League does support merit selection.
Bill Progress in the Legislature: 2/23/2010: 1st reading and referred to
More issues