Introduction of Legislation Revising the Number of Associate Judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION REVISING THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -- (Extensions of Remarks - April 06, 2006)

* Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it has become necessary to introduce a bill that is necessary for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to function as Congress intended. Federal law requires that judges of the Superior Court and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Article I Courts, to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. This bill, which is the companion bill to S. 2068 introduced by Senator Susan Collins, will increase the number of Superior Court judges by 3 to 61 in order to allow the Superior Court to function at the 58 judge level approved by Congress. However, after the establishment of the new Family Court Division, the Superior Court was temporarily increased by three in order to assist the transition because Congress wanted to assure a full complement of family court judges. However, no permanent authorization reflecting the changes was approved. Consequently, as judges have retired or otherwise moved on, the President has continued to make nominations to fill each judge's seat. With no authorization for the necessary number of authorized judges, an unintended anomaly has resulted in Presidential nominations but no actual vacancies because the court is short three judges. Because as many as nearly 2 years occur after the Senate approval, lawyers are increasingly unwilling to give up their practices to apply for judgeships on the Superior Court, the trial court of jurisdiction for all criminal and civil matters in the District of Columbia. The 15-18 month pipeline for confirming new judges has presented the court with some serious concerns. With such a long waiting period, private and solo practitioners, for example, who are among the best qualified, are significantly deterred, and the court loses judicial talent that would otherwise be available.

* The present anomaly has forced the Superior Court to use senior or retired judges inappropriately. Because they are retired, senior judges take on particular cases or a full calendar temporarily, for up to a year. However, inasmuch as confirmed active or permanent judges often cannot be immediately seated, there is no judge to maintain the court's 2 calendars, one for criminal court and the other for temporary restraining orders and warrants. Consequently, several senior judges have taken on this indispensable duty since 2003. While senior judges, of course, take on cases, they do so at their discretion. It should never be the case that senior judges perform an important regular and vital function of the court for years at a time.

* I ask that this bill be approved to remedy this problem in the D.C. court system that results entirely from congressional action.

http://thomas.loc.gov/