Solictor General and reviser back bill to publish appellate cases delayed beyond six months
Loading...
Summary
A bill to require the Clerk of the Appellate Courts to publish monthly lists of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cases not decided within six months was presented to the Committee on Judiciary as a transparency measure; Solicitor General Anthony Powell said delays harm litigants and internal court tracking used to motivate judges.
Jason Thompson, office of reviser of statutes, told the Committee on Judiciary that House Bill 26 52 would amend KSA 20-33 0 1 to require the Clerk of the Appellate Courts to publish monthly lists of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cases in which a decision has not been entered and filed within six months of submission and to post cases where a petition for review has not been acted on within six months.
The bill, Thompson said, largely replaces existing statutory time‑limit provisions with a reporting requirement and would take effect July 1 if adopted. "You'll note that most of the bill is removed or most of the current law is removed, and it's replaced with this reporting requirement," Thompson said during his briefing.
Anthony Powell, the solicitor general, described the proposal as a measure of transparency rather than a directive to judges. "The courts do keep track of all this information," Powell said, "but they don't publish it. That's why we're asking that these cases be published." He told the committee that internal reminder lists used during his time on the Court of Appeals helped motivate judges and that public lists could spur similar action without violating separation of powers.
Powell cited harms from delay: in a probation revocation appeal, he said, a delayed decision can render the appeal moot because the defendant may serve the contested sentence before the opinion issues. He also told lawmakers anecdotal reports that some Supreme Court matters have taken years for an opinion to be issued.
Committee members asked whether the proposal replaces current language and whether any district court provisions were omitted. Thompson responded that most existing provisions would be replaced, with a small preserved definition about when an appeal is deemed submitted.
The chair closed the hearing after no written opponents registered. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing and did not make a decision on amendments at that time.
