House Journal: Page 60: Wednesday, January 12, 2000
take into account the combined workloads of all levels of the trial court. By that I
mean the district court, district associate court, juvenile court and magistrates. The
details of our evaluation are contained in our separate report to you.
We recognize that the current judgeship formulas are statutory, and as such are
your prerogative. However, because judicial resources are so essential to the delivery
of justice, the Supreme Court has taken steps to rework the judgeship formulas. We
plan to have the National Center for State Courts develop recommendations for new
formulas. I am confident that we can design for your consideration new judgeship
formulas that will precisely measure the number of judges that the state needs.
Other Needs. All of our needs, however, cannot be put off for study. For the next
fiscal year, we need more resources in a number of areas to keep pace with the public’s
demand for prompt court services. The details of our most immediate needs are
contained in our budget request that we have submitted to you.
Of course, your commitment is crucial. I’m sure that most of you recall the lean
years of the early 1990’s and how insufficient resources threatened to impede the
delivery of justice. Some of you may recall my address in 1993 when I reported that
because of budget cuts and rising caseloads, the quality of justice in Iowa was at risk.
Back then we weathered the tough times and working together avoided a crisis.
I mention this only because it gave us two important lessons: the serious
consequences which can occur when the demand for access to court services is not met
with sufficient resources, and the benefits to be derived when we share a commitment
to the delivery of justice.
Limited access to justice, whatever its cause, undermines public confidence in the
court system and thereby all state government. Public confidence in the court system
also hinges on equal justice. And to fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law
requires vigilance - the third lesson.
Equal Justice Requires Vigilance
By equal justice I mean our duty to administer the law impartially and equally
regardless of gender, race, age, economic status, religion or political affiliation.
This principle was bolstered in 1962 when, with the approval of Iowa voters, our
state constitution was amended to ensure that judges are selected based upon merit,
legal knowledge, hard work and temperament, not popularity. Because of this far-
sighted reform, Iowa has a high-caliber judiciary and Iowans are assured that judges
owe their allegiance to the law and to nothing else.
Nearly thirty years later, with funds you provided, the Iowa Supreme Court
established the Equality in the Courts Task Force. We established the task force to
scrutinize the court system for any trace of bias based upon race or sex. After a
thorough investigation, the task force reported that while it found no evidence of overt
bias, there was the perception of bias among women and minorities.
More recently, a survey commissioned by the American Bar Association revealed
that a substantial number of people in this country believe that the justice system does
not treat everyone equally. Many of the survey respondents believe that our justice
© 2000 Cornell College and
League of Women Voters of Iowa
Comments about this site or page?
hjourn@legis.iowa.gov.
Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.
Last update: Wed Jan 19 13:35:00 CST 2000
URL: /DOCS/GA/78GA/Session.2/HJournal/00000/00060.html
jhf