Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Claims court proposal fails in committee after tied vote; supporters argued specialization would ease district court backlog
Summary
Senate Bill 385 would create a specialty claims court to handle constitutional and complex civil claims. The committee split 11–11 on the motion and the bill failed in Finance and Claims after debate over whether the measure grows the judiciary and whether it addresses the district courts’ main backlog.
Senate Bill 385, a proposal to create a specialty claims court to hear constitutional and complex civil claims, failed in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee after an 11–11 tie vote.
Sponsor Senator McGillivray said the court would specialize in complex civil matters — permits, constitutional claims and other time-consuming cases — and that the measure included pay-as-you-go offsets in Section D (removing pretrial sentencing reports, reducing judges in one county, and other tweaks) to cover costs. He argued the new court would free district courts to focus on criminal dockets and other pressing matters.
Opponents said the district court backlog is driven principally by criminal cases and that the committee had recently denied other judiciary funding requests for counties that needed judges or staff. Several senators objected to creating a new court or growing the judiciary; one senator said he was not sent to the legislature to grow state government. Another senator criticized the proposed salary level (an example in the fiscal language referenced a salary 20% greater than a Supreme Court justice) and questioned the fiscal logic.
A roll-call was requested. The vote was tied at 11–11 and the motion failed; the chair instructed members to return the bill to their folders and the committee took no further action.
