Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables judicial evaluation commission after fiscal and separation‑of‑powers concerns
Summary
Senate Bill 45 would create a Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission; opponents argued the fiscal note underestimates survey, training and staffing costs and warned of separation‑of‑powers risks. A motion to pass failed in committee and the measure was tabled (vote: 9 yes, 13 no).
Senate Bill 45, presented by Senator Tom McGillivray, would establish a Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and fund related activities including surveys and an executive director. Committee hearing testimony focused primarily on the fiscal note: opponents said the fiscal estimate omitted likely costs for courtroom observations, survey administration and staffing and that $25,000 for third‑party surveys is too low.
Opponents including Anne Sherwood of Friends of the Third Branch and state trial-lawyer groups argued the proposal risks separation-of-powers concerns by creating an external mechanism to grade judges. They also said prior survey work had been done by existing court entities and urged the committee to improve existing data collection rather than create new bureaucracy.
Proponents and the sponsor said the fiscal note could be clarified and that the bill’s cost is a reasonable investment given the intended oversight. In executive action, a motion to pass SB 45 failed on a roll-call (recorded in committee as 9 yes and 13 no) and the chair announced the bill was tabled in Senate Finance and Claims pending further work and fiscal analysis.
