Abolition of Judgeship

Abolition of Judgeship, 1999 ND 226, 603 N.W.2d 57

[Go to Documents]Filed Dec. 2, 1999[Download as WordPerfect]IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTAORDER

1999 ND 226

In the Matter of the Consultations Under N.D.C.C. Section 27-05-02.1 Regarding Judgeship Nos. 6 and 7 in the Northeast Judicial District; Judgeship No. 2 in the Northeast Central Judicial District; Judgeship Nos. 6, 7, and 8 in the Northwest Judicial District; Judgeship Nos. 4 and 9 in the South Central Judicial District, and Judgeship Nos. 1, 3, and 5 in the Southwest Judicial District

Nos. 990224, 990246, 990247, 990248 & 990249

[¶1] On January 1, 1991, there were 27 district court and 26 county court judgeships in the state. The 1991 North Dakota Legislative Assembly abolished the county courts and the office of county judge in all counties effective January 1, 1995, and established 53 district court judgeships. See N.D.C.C. § 27-05-00.1.

[¶2] The 1991 Legislative Assembly also required the Supreme Court to reduce the number of district judges to 42 before January 2, 2001, and established the procedure to accomplish the required reduction. See N.D.C.C. § 27-05-01(2) and § 27-05-02.1.

[¶3] To date, this Court has, through attrition, reduced the number of district court judgeships in the state to 43. However, we have made inquiry and we have not received notice of the impending resignation or retirement of any currently sitting district court judge. This Court, therefore, for the first time must exercise the authority conferred on it under N.D.C.C. § 27-05-02.1(2) and (3). These sections specify that if on July 1, 1999, the number of district court judges is more than 42 and no resignation or retirement is pending, this Court must, after consultation with district court judges and attorneys in the affected judicial district, abolish an office of district court judge. N.D.C.C. § 27-05-02.1(2) further requires this Court to notify the affected judicial district and district court judge holding that office, at least one year before the end of the term of office of the district court judge, that the judgeship will be abolished at the end of the term of office.

[¶4] The judgeship to be abolished must be selected from those judgeships whose term expires in December 2000. N.D.C.C. § 27-05-02.1(2). The terms of office for 12 of the 43 district court judgeships will expire December 31, 2000. These judgeships are: Judgeships Nos. 6 and 7 in the Northeast Judicial District; Judgeship No. 2 in the Northeast Central Judicial District; Judgeships Nos. 6, 7, and 8 in the Northwest Judicial District; Judgeships Nos. 4 and 9 in the South Central Judicial District; Judgeship No. 8 in the Southeast Judicial District; and Judgeships Nos. 1, 3, and 5 in the Southwest Judicial District. Because this Court on April 22, 1999, determined the vacancy in Judgeship No. 9 of the Southeast Judicial District must be filled, we are not revisiting that decision and the judgeship in the Southeast Judicial District has been excluded from this consideration.

[¶5] As required by N.D.C.C. § 27-05-02.1 we consulted with judges and attorneys from the Northeast Judicial District, the Northeast Central Judicial District, the Northwest Judicial District, the Southwest Judicial District, and the South Central Judicial District. As required by our order and N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 7.2, each district submitted a report addressing the criteria set forth in N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 7.2, § 4 to evaluate judicial vacancies for compliance with N.D.C.C. § 27-05-02.1. Those criteria include:

1. Population;

2. Caseloads and unusual case types;

3. Trends in 1 and 2;

4. Impact of proposed vacancy disposition on travel requirements;

5. Age or possible retirement of remaining judges in the affected judicial district; and6. Availability of facilities (e.g., law enforcement, correctional, and court facilities).

[¶6] This Court has reviewed the 1997 weighted caseload study, the 1998 weighted caseload study, and the statistics available under the weighted caseload study for nine months of 1999. The Court has also reviewed information provided by the Department of Health and the Office of the Attorney General regarding population trends and projections and crime statistics.

[¶7] Based upon our review and recognizing our state's scarce judicial resources must be allocated in a manner to best achieve effective judicial administration, we are compelled to designate Judgeship No. 5 in the Southwest Judicial District with chambers in Bowman for abolition effective at the end of the current judicial term.

[¶8] Our decision is based upon a review of caseloads and populations in each of the judicial districts and upon projections of population changes.

[¶9] The weighted caseload study allocates the amount of judicial resources (including judges and judicial referees) needed to handle the cases filed in a district after weighting each type of case by the amount of time required to process an average case of that type. The study adjusts each district for travel time depending on whether that district requires high travel, moderate travel or low travel time from the judges serving the district. The study also allocates time which is not available for handling cases but which is required in each district for the presiding judge to handle administrative matters. The resulting computation is the minimum judicial resources (expressed as a "judicial FTE" which includes both judges and judicial referees) to meet the needs based upon weighted case filings.

[¶10] When the minimum judicial FTE's required are compared to the judicial FTE's currently available in a district, the difference is expressed as a positive number, indicating there are more judicial resources available than current weighted case filings require, or a negative number, indicating that there are fewer judicial resources than are needed to serve that district's weighted case filings.

[¶11] The weighted caseload studies show the judicial margins in all judicial districts of the state. The following reports omit juvenile dismissals because dismissals of juvenile cases have a negligible impact on judicial workload. Further, because Griggs County was transferred from the Northeast Central Judicial District to the Southeast Judicial District in 1999, the following reports for 1997 and 1998 have been adjusted to assume the filings in Griggs County were part of the Southeast Judicial District:

1997 Weighted Caseload Study Without Juvenile Dismissals

DISTRICTWEIGHTED
FILINGSJUDICIAL
FTE
REQUIREDTOTAL
ADJUSTED
JUDICIAL
FTEDIFFERENCEEast Central632,5429.388.88-0.50
Northeast404,6046.956.88-0.07
Northeast Central366,282 #5.436.88+1.45
Northwest454,9107.078.88+1.81*South Central577,8638.989.36+0.38Southwest178,9172.783.88+1.10Southeast380,0506.535.88-0.65Totals2,995,16947.1150.64+3.53 *# The Northeast Central Judicial District experienced a 26% reduction in civil filings in 1997 when compared to 1996. The reduction is believed to be caused by the April 1997 flood that closed the City of Grand Forks for several months. See North Dakota Courts, Annual Report, 1997, at 10.

* Judgeship No. 3, chambered in Minot, North Dakota, was terminated at the retirement on December 31, 1998 of the Honorable Wallace D. Berning.

1998 Weighted Caseload Study Without Juvenile Dismissals

DISTRICT WEIGHTED
FILINGSJUDICIAL
FTE
REQUIREDTOTAL
ADJUSTED
JUDICIAL
FTEDIFFERENCEEast Central666,3499.888.88-1.00
Northeast383,1946.586.88+0.30
Northeast Central429,2346.366.88+0.52
Northwest446,7416.947.88+0.94South Central537,4038.359.36+1.01Southwest178,5692.773.88+1.11Southeast385,6796.625.88-0.74Totals3,024,73147.5149.64+2.13

[¶12] In 1997 there were 44 district judges. The weighted caseload study for that year indicates the following weighted filings per existing total adjusted judicial FTE in each district:

DISTRICTEXISTING TOTAL
ADJUSTED FTEWEIGHTED FILINGS
PER JUDICIAL FTEEast Central8.8871,232
Northeast6.8858,809
Northeast Central6.8853,239
Northwest8.8851,229 *South Central9.3661,738Southwest3.8846,113Southeast5.8864,634 *Judgeship No. 3 with chambers in Minot was terminated upon the retirement on December 31, 1998 of the Honorable Wallace D. Berning.

[¶13] Based upon our 1998 study, the weighted filings per existing total adjusted judicial FTE in each district was as follows:

DISTRICTEXISTING TOTAL
ADJUSTED FTEWEIGHTED FILINGS
PER JUDICIAL FTEEast Central8.8875,039
Northeast6.8855,697
Northeast Central6.8862,388
Northwest7.8856,693South Central9.3657,415Southwest3.8846,023Southeast5.8865,592

[¶14] The statewide average weighted filing per adjusted judicial FTE in 1998 was 60,933. If one judgeship were eliminated so that the total adjusted judicial FTE's were 48.64, the statewide average weighted case filing per judicial FTE in 1998 would be 62,186.

[¶15] Using 1998 weighted filings, a comparison of all judicial districts with one judge removed in each district, the resulting weighted filing per judicial FTE would be as follows:

DISTRICTTOTAL ADJUSTED
FTE WITH ONE
JUDGE REDUCEDWEIGHTED
FILINGS PER
JUDICIAL FTEEast Central7.8884,562
Northeast5.8865,169
Northeast Central5.8872,999
Northwest6.8864,933South Central8.3664,283Southwest2.8862,003Southeast4.8879,033

[¶16] Only the Southwest Judicial District would remain below the statewide adjusted average of weighted filings to judicial FTE if one judgeship were reduced from that district.

[¶17] The weighted caseload studies indicate the Northwest Judicial District (1997 - +1.81; 1998 - +0.94), the South Central Judicial District (1997 - +.38; 1998 - +1.01) and the Southwest Judicial District (1997 - +1.10; 1998 - +1.11) have the largest judicial margins and are most able to accept a reduction in judgeship based upon weighted case filings. When that computation is coupled with population trends, it is apparent that appropriate planning for judicial needs requires the reduction be made where the greatest reduction of population is anticipated.

[¶18] To examine trends in population changes, we have reviewed projections prepared at the direction of the Department of Health.

[¶19] The 1990 populations of the judicial districts were:

DISTRICTPOPULATIONEast Central (3 counties)114,046
Northeast (11 counties)88,171
Northeast Central (2 counties)75,093
Northwest (6 counties)98,355South Central (12 counties)130,965Southwest (8 counties)41,175Southeast (11 counties)90,995

[¶20] The 1998 populations of the judicial districts under review were:

DISTRICTSPERCENTAGES OF POPULATION
CHANGE FROM 1990 to 1998East Cental+11.9%Northeast-4.7%Northeast Central-6.0%Northwest-2.6%South Central+2.8%Southwest-5.1%Southeast-4.9%

[¶22] Projections indicate the trends will continue. The projected populations of the districts and the anticipated percentages of population change from 1990 to 2015 are:

DISTRICTPROJECTED
POPULATIONSANTICIPATED
PERCENTAGESEast Central143,226+25.6%Northeast80,982-8.2%Northeast Central67,778-9.7%Northwest97,506-0.9%South Central141,020+7.7%Southwest36,515-11.3%Southeast82,040-9.8%

[¶23] These statistics and projected population trends indicate the Southwest District is, and will continue to be, our least populous judicial district.

[¶24] When the population-to-judge/referee ratio is compared among the districts, reduction of a judgeship in the Southwest Judicial District results in a lower population to judge/referee ratio than any other district except the Northeast Central Judicial District.

NORTHEAST
CENTRAL1998 POPULATION 1998 BIRTHSBIRTH TO
POPULATION
RATIO (1998)Grand Forks66,86996601.44%Nelson3,7162600.70%District70,58599201.41%

SOUTHWEST1998 POPULATION 1998 BIRTHSBIRTH TO
POPULATION
RATIO (1998)Adams2,7141900.70%Billings1,058700.66%Bowman3,3173401.03%Dunn3,5602400.67%Golden Valley1,8761600.85%Hettinger2,9242200.75%Slope8651001.16%Stark22,78026201.15%District39,09439401.01%

TABLE 2
INDEXED CRIME RATE

YEARINDEXED CRIME PER
100,000 POPULATION
GRAND FORKS INDEXED CRIME PER
100,000 POPULATION
NELSON19955385.0535.919965142.3291.019974298.0
No Report19984922.1
No ReportAverage4936.9413.45 ** Based on 2 years.

TABLE 3
1998 FILINGS BY COUNTY
SOUTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTIESFILINGS
(ALL)FILINGS
(WITHOUT
TRAFFIC)FELONIESJUVENILE
DELINQUENCYJUVENILE
DEPENDENCY ADMIN.
PPEALSAdams827 332 7 8 0 0Bowman 533346 2 10 0 2Hettinger 359 155 4 5 0 0Slope 201 53 0 0 0 1TOTALS 1920(.2459) 886(.2058) 13(.1494) 23(.2233) 0(.0000) 3(.1071)

Billings304912100Dunn8073064623Golden Valley34422151011Stark4432280163631621TOTALS 5887(.7541) 3419(.7942) 74(.8506) 80(.7767) 19(1.0000) 25(.8929)

TABLE 4
1997 FILINGS BY COUNTY
SOUTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTIES FILINGS

(ALL) FILINGS
(WITHOUT
TRAFFIC) FELONIES JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY JUVENILE
DEPENDENCY ADMIN.
APPEALSAdams944 347 6 5 5 1Bowman 651371 3 5 2 3Hettinger 563 175 15 4 0 0Slope 247 61 2 0 1 0TOTALS 2405(.2451) 954(.2214) 26(.2342) 14(.1944) 8(.4444) 4(.1290)

Billings304973300Dunn15433729002Golden Valley3502303000Stark5209265570551025TOTALS 7406(.7549) 3354(.7786)