Dear Neighbors:
These weeks after Election Day are a period of transition at the national level and in our General Assembly. In today’s letter, I will discuss three judicial reform ideas I am working on for legislation to introduce next year.
A. Retirement Age For Lower Court Judges
Rhode Island’s lower court judges are appointed with lifetime tenure (for “good behavior”) and no mandatory retirement age. Rhode Island’s lifetime tenure is unique – every other state either appoints or elects judges for a fixed term of years, or requires a mandatory retirement age, or both. A common retirement age is 70 or 75. Many judges can continue to serve at a high level past their 70’s, but I believe the benefits of a mandatory retirement program outweigh the loss of these judges’ continued active service. I do not believe any judge is indispensable, and that there are many capable attorneys who can fill a judicial vacancy upon retirement of an incumbent. Also, the increased turnover of judges will promote greater diversity on the bench, and the introduction of new ideas and perspectives among our judges. (I plan to propose this change only for newly appointed judges – current judges will be “grandmothered” or “grandfathered” into the current lifetime tenure system.)
B. Increased Pay For Jury Service
Rhode Island law currently provides for daily pay of $15 for Superior Court jury service. This inadequate pay imposes a financial hardship on jurors, in many cases making it unaffordable for Rhode Islanders to perform this vital government service. Increasing juror compensation will increase the pool of willing jurors, thereby advancing the ideal of a “jury of one’s peers” as well as the public’s recognition and appreciation of this important component of our judicial system.
C. Expanding The Pool Of Eligible Candidates For Judicial Vacancies
1. The Problem With Limited Lists Of “Highly Qualified” Candidates
Candidates for Rhode Island’s judicial vacancies are vetted by a Judicial Nominating Commission that interviews a group of “qualified” candidates, from which it selects three to five “highly qualified” candidates for possible appointment by the Governor and confirmation by the Senate. From time to time, the pool of candidates for one vacancy includes one or more who were part of a list of “highly qualified” candidates sent to the Governor for a previous vacancy, but whom the Governor did not select for appointment. In the meantime, new candidates apply, many with excellent qualifications. This can produce the anomalous result of the Commission finding a repeat candidate to have been “highly qualified” in one round of applications, but not “highly qualified” in a subsequent one
2. Restoring The Prior Practice Of Continued Eligibility
For a while, the General Assembly rectified this anomaly by enacting legislation each year that “rolled over” the lists of “highly qualified” candidates to the following year without requiring re-selection by the Judicial Nominating Commission. This increased the pool of available, highly qualified candidates for the Governor to consider. This interim solution remained in place for several years until it was ended. (I am told it had something to do with disagreements between the House and the Senate on other issues.) I plan to propose that any judicial candidate whom the Judicial Nominating Commission deems “highly qualified” will remain eligible for judicial vacancies for a period of five years, unless the Nominating Commission, for an appropriate reason, takes an affirmative vote to remove that particular candidate from future consideration.