Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Restructuring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bills to reduce judgeships amid strong opposition from civil‑rights and legal groups
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee reported SB217 and SB197 favorably after hearings in which proponents argued the measures would "right-size" courts based on caseloads while opponents warned they would remove locally elected judges, harm judicial diversity in Orleans Parish and relied on disputed data. Both measures passed committee votes 11–4.
The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday voted to report two bills that would reduce the number of judges in parts of Louisiana’s court system, setting the measures up to move to the full House despite sharp objections from civil‑rights groups, legal advocates and some members.
Senate Bill 217, sponsored by Senator Morris, would reduce certain judgeships in Orleans Parish — cutting criminal court judges from 12 to nine, juvenile judges from four to two and municipal/traffic judges from seven to five, according to the bill summary given at the hearing. Senator Morris said the changes respond to case‑load comparisons across parishes and circuits and described the bills as steps toward “right‑sizing” the judiciary.
Opponents said the bills risk removing elected, locally representative judges and could disproportionately affect judicial diversity in New Orleans. “This bill is going to create not efficiency, but strain on the judiciary,” said Charles Phipps, vice president for policy, advocacy and legal affairs at the Urban League of Louisiana. Sarah Whittington, advocacy director for the ACLU of Louisiana, questioned the accuracy and comparability of the caseload data cited by proponents and said the measures would cut judges from “black seats” on the bench.
Committee members pressed both sides on which metrics should govern decisions — filings, opinions, cases per judge or population — and whether Louisiana’s de novo appellate review requires a different workload calculus than other states. Representative Green and other members asked for more granular, time‑intensive workload data rather than simple case counts.
After testimony and debate the committee voted to report SB217 favorably with amendments; the roll call showed 11 yeas and 4 nays on the motion to report. A second measure with similar aims, SB197, proposing a two‑judge reduction on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, was also reported favorably by the same margin following similar questioning about workload metrics and implications for appellate capacity.
What’s next: The bills were reported out of committee and are expected to be scheduled for floor action. Committee discussion flagged the need for additional analysis of workload intensity, trial types and the potential effect on minority representation; several members asked proponents to supply follow‑up data before final floor votes.
Who said what: The hearing record includes extended remarks from Charles Phipps (Urban League) and Sarah Whittington (ACLU), who both urged caution and additional study; Senator Morris and other supporters said the intent is administrative efficiency and alignment with peer jurisdictions. The committee vote was recorded and both bills were reported favorably to the floor.
