Senate Journal: Page 58: Wednesday, January 15, 2003
We suggested most of these changes to you last year, but you did not approve them.
Clearly in times such as these we should not cling to the status quo. We urge you to
reconsider these ideas, which have been submitted as prefiled bills. The benefits are
too great to pass up.
Reorganization of Judicial Districts
One of the statutory changes we seek would establish a process for regularly
reviewing and adjusting the configuration of the judicial districts. The organization of
the districts has not changed for thirty years.
The court views the general concept of redistricting as a valuable tool in any
comprehensive plan to effectively manage judicial resources. It has the potential to
give us greater flexibility in the equitable distribution of judicial staffing power
throughout our state. Given the severe budgetary constraints facing us as an
institution, we cannot afford to ignore the administrative efficiencies redistricting
offers.
Last month, the Court received the report of its advisory committee on judicial
branch redistricting. In response to its charge, the committee proposed alternative
administrative structures to address changes in demographics and judicial workload
that have affected court services since our current eight-district structure was
established. We commend the committee, and especially its chairs, Chief Judge David
Remley and businessman David Oman. Their thoughtful analysis, enhanced by their
initiative in seeking public comment, deserves our appreciation.
As our Commission on Planning for the 21st century said in its 1996 report, the
Court should periodically evaluate the administrative effectiveness of the district
boundaries and suggest legislative changes when appropriate. We feel it's appropriate
now. After careful consideration, the court has decided to recommend legislation for
redrawing judicial district boundaries. Due to the complexity of implementing such
changes, we anticipate that the new boundaries would become effective no sooner than
July 1, 2004.
Moreover, we do not view redistricting as an isolated or short-term solution. To be
truly effective, any redistricting plan must be complimented by other important
initiatives, some of which I have mentioned.
Impact of Legislation on Court
There is another way you can help. The courts are charged with the responsibility
of deciding cases brought before them. We have no control over the number of cases
presented. Nor should we. Though well-intentioned, legislation nearly always adds to
our workload. We ask that when debating new laws, you carefully consider the impact
your actions have on the court system. More responsibilities without commensurate
resources sometimes make for poor results.
Conclusion
I began this report talking about achievements and challenges-we have our share of
both.
We are heartened by recent accomplishments that bolster our efforts to serve the
people of Iowa. Our new procedures to expedite appeals of termination of parental
rights cases are a huge benefit to troubled children and families, reducing the period of
© 2003 Cornell College and
League of Women Voters of Iowa
Comments about this site or page?
sjourn@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 22 14:05:00 CST 2003
URL: /DOCS/GA/80GA/Session.1/SJournal/00000/00058.html
jhf