Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/12/2003 01:31 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 8-DIVISION OF 9TH CIRCUIT CT OF APPEALS
MR. BRIAN HOVE, staff for Chair Seekins, explained that SJR 8
relates to splitting the 9th Circuit Court. He noted that
twelve days ago the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a
controversial decision, which essentially declared the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional. This ruling clearly demonstrates
the disconnect the court has with Alaska. SJR 8 respectfully
calls upon Congress to divide the 9th Circuit Court. This
action is necessitated for a variety of reasons not the least of
which includes the vast geographical and philosophical distance
separating Alaska from the San Francisco based court.
The 9th Circuit Court adjudicates a caseload far beyond that
which is reasonably manageable. In total, there are eleven
Circuit Courts of Appeal throughout the country, yet the 9th
Circuit Court oversees nearly 20 percent of the U.S. population.
In other words, the 9th Circuit Court is twice the ideal size.
This size disparity is cited as the primary reason for the 9th
Circuit Court's relatively high reversal record in cases heard
before the U.S. Supreme Court.
SJR 8 endorses legislation previously introduced in Congress by
Senators Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski. This legislation
would reconfigure the 9th Circuit Court to encompass Arizona,
California and Nevada. The proposed new 12th Circuit Court
would take in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and
Washington. Senator Lisa Murkowski recently introduced similar
legislation in Congress.
SJR 8 simply seeks to accomplish two objectives: (1) to correct
a considerable imbalance in the 9th Circuit Court's caseload,
and; (2) provide the disparate regions falling within the 9th
Circuit Court's current purview with a better informed panel of
judges. These objectives are best accomplished by splitting the
9th Circuit Court.
MR. HOVE welcomed questions.
2:47 p.m.
SENATOR OGAN said splitting the court is not necessarily going
to make the judges better because they are there for life. He
pointed to the "one nation under God" portion for the Pledge of
Allegiance and said he was always perplexed why a lot of judges,
especially the 9th Circuit Court judges, seem to look at the
establishment clause of the 1st Amendment that disallows the
establishment of religion, but seem to totally ignore the second
part that says "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." He
said it seems that this resolution is not about the Pledge of
Allegiance ruling, but that might be some of the catalyst for
the resolution. Although he wished that splitting the court
would get rid of some of those judges, attrition would probably
have to take care of that. He opined that it is fortunate that
the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn the 9th Circuit Court
decision once again.
SENATOR OGAN asked Mr. Hove if he knew the running tally of 9th
circuit cases overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because the
last time he counted, approximately 29 out of 31 cases were
overturned.
MR. HOVE said he didn't know the precise number.
SENATOR OGAN said it is extremely high and splitting the court
is not going to get rid of those judges.
MR. HOVE said splitting the court might give an opportunity to
play a larger role in the process.
SENATOR OGAN agreed.
MR. HOVE added that whatever the Legislature could do to that
extent would certainly be a benefit.
SENATOR OGAN informed committee members he attended a hearing at
the 9th Circuit Court a couple of years earlier involving the
Katie John case and found it fascinating. [Katie John et al vs.
United States of America No. 93-35295]
CHAIR SEEKINS read from page 2, line 23. The 9th Circuit Court
was reversed five of the first six times it was reviewed in the
October 2002 term. He said one of the things they are very
concerned about and one of the reasons SJR 8 was proposed is a
9th Circuit Judge cannot attain necessary familiarity with
federal legislation affecting Alaska because a 9th Circuit Court
judge may only sit on the panel of Alaska once every ten years.
It is hard to get any continuity for a little state like Alaska
with that number of cases and that number of justices. Because
of Alaska's extraordinary size, no one ever has a chance to
build up any familiarity with federal laws that affect the State
of Alaska.
SENATOR ELLIS asked how many judgeships were currently vacant on
the 9th Circuit Court.
MR. HOVE said he didn't have that information, but could provide
it if desired.
SENATOR ELLIS said he would like that information provided.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved SJR 8 from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|