Arkansas Judiciary 1994-95 Year In Review
1994-95 IN REVIEW
Court of Appeals Expansion
For several years, attempts have been made to expand the membership
of the Court of Appeals in order to deal with the overwhelming
appellate court caseload in the state. In 1979, when the Court of
Appeals first came into existence the total number of cases filed
in Arkansas trial courts was 98,213. By 1994-95, that number had
increased to 180,680. In 1979, there were 65 circuit and chancery
judges in the state. By 1994-95, that number had risen to 107.
All of these increases at the trial court level translated into a
dramatic increase in appeals to the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals. The first attempt to expand the Court was presented to
the General Assembly in 1991 but was defeated in the House of
Representatives. In 1993, the General Assembly enacted a proposal
creating six new judges effective July 1, 1995, but required the
1995 General Assembly to determine electoral districts. When, in
1995, the General Assembly was unable to reach a consensus on the
electoral districts, they amended the law to delay the
implementation of the Court until January 1, 1996.
New Trial Court Judgeships and Redistricting
For the first time since 1985, changes were made in the
geographical boundaries of trial court districts. First, Pike
County was transferred from the Nine East Judicial District to the
Nine-West Judicial District. In separate legislation, Crawford
County was moved from the Twelfth Judicial District to create a new
single-county Twenty-First Judicial District effective January 1,
1997.
In addition, several new judgeships were created and the
jurisdiction of a number of current judgeships were expanded. New
circuit/chancery judgeships were created in the Nine-West,
Thirteenth and Twentieth districts. Two circuit judgeships in both
the Second and Sixteenth Districts and one circuit judgeship in the
Third District were converted to circuit/chancery judgeships. In
addition, a new circuit/chancery judgeship was created for the
Twenty-first District effective January 1, 1999.
Court Funding
A major step toward the simplification of the financial accounting
system within the court system and toward the shifting of funding
from the local to state level took place with the adoption by the
General Assembly of the Uniform Filing Fee and Court Cost Act. The
legislation, proposed by the Arkansas Bar Association, was based
upon similar legislation drafted by the Administrative Office of
the Courts and proposed by the Arkansas Municipal Judges Council in
1993. The multitude of individual costs and fees which were
assessed by all courts was repealed by the Act and a uniform fee
was adopted to be assessed in all cases. The distribution process
for the funds was also greatly simplified. One effect of the Act
will be to route funds through the state Department of Finance and
Administration. Additional revenues which are produced due to the
increased uniform fees will create a state fund which is available
to and kept for the administration of justice in the state.
Another provision of the Act requires the Department of Finance and
Administration to secure comprehensive information from cities and
counties about the levels of expenditures for court and court-
related purposes. This information coupled with the new accounting
and funding structure will make much easier the shift of funding
from the local to the state level.
Trial Court Staff Support
In an age of computers and space travel, there are still over
twenty trial court judges in Arkansas who have no staffing
assistance whatsoever. They answer their own telephones and type
their own letters and orders. At the same time, there are some
trial judges in the state who are fortunate enough to have multiple
office assistance, bailiffs, and law clerks. In 1993, the General
Assembly approved three state funded positions to begin to provide
some limited staff assistance in those judicial districts where
none existed. In 1995, the General Assembly greatly expanded the
program to provide, effective July 1, 1996, one trial court staff
assistant for each trial judge in the state.
ADR Commission
In 1993, the Judicial Council was successful in receiving approval
of legislation specifically authorizing, for the first time, the
use of various forms of alternative dispute resolution within the
court system. In 1995, this legislation was expanded to create
within the Administrative Office of the Courts the Alternative
Dispute Resolution Commission. The Commission is charged with
promoting and encouraging the implementation of ADR both inside and
outside of the court system and will act as a certification agency
for ADR practitioners.
Judicial Retirement Fund Changes
When the Arkansas Judicial Retirement System was improved and
enhanced by major legislation in the early 1980's in an effort to
make the fund actuarially sound, certain benefits which had been
available were discontinued for any judges first elected after
1983. This distinction between pre and post 1983 judges created,
in effect, two retirement benefit systems for judges. In an effort
to ameliorate the differences between the benefit systems, new
legislation was proposed by the Arkansas Judicial Council and
approved by the General Assembly to provide those judges elected
after 1983 an annual cost of living increase in judicial retirement
benefits. This change will more closely equalize the benefit
packages available to all judges. In one other legislative change
proposed by the Judicial Council, the membership of the Judicial
Retirement Board was amended to allow a non-judge investment
professional to serve if elected by the Judicial Council.
Judicial Selection
Arkansas remains one of approximately twenty states which selects
at least some of its judges in partisan elections and one of only
two states which utilizes that method for the selection of all
judges. For several years, the Arkansas Judicial Council has been
on record in support of moving to a nonpartisan election system.
This move, however, has met the opposition of the state's political
parties which generate a substantial amount of revenue from filing
fees which are paid by judicial candidates. When the General
Assembly in 1995 approved a system of state funding for all primary
elections, it appeared that the resistance to the judicial election
proposal had been removed. A bill, supported by the Arkansas
Judicial Council and the Arkansas Bar Association, was quickly
approved by the Senate but defeated by a House committee during the
last days of the 1995 General Assembly. The Judicial Council has
been successful in securing the support of the Governor to make
such a change and it is hoped that action can be taken in the next
regular or special legislative session.
Constitutional Reform
Arkansas' 1874 Constitution, which critics allege is badly in need
of reform, was again the topic of extensive debate during the 1995
General Assembly when the Governor proposed a process for the
drafting and approval of a new Constitution. Voters in 1970 and
again in 1980 defeated proposed constitutions which had been
prepared by popularly elected constitutional convention delegates.
Each of those drafts included a new judicial article which would
have improved and modernized the state judicial system consistent
with nationally recommended standards. A related effort in 1991 by
the Arkansas Bar Association to refer to the people only a new
judicial article for adoption was defeated in the General Assembly.
The process approved by the 1995 General Assembly authorizes the
use of legislative committees to consider and draft only those non-
controversial sections of the Constitution, including the judicial
article, in order to create a working draft of a new document which
might then be considered by a constitutional convention and
subsequently put before the voters.
Important Appellate Decisions
From term limits to Christmas lights, 1994-95 was an unusual year
in the number of highly publicized cases to find themselves on the
docket of the Arkansas Supreme Court. One of the first issues of
the term involved the constitutionality of the voter-approved state
constitutional amendment placing term limits on both state and
federal elected representatives. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs.
Thornton, the Court upheld the amendment's application to state
officials but found the limits on federal officials in violation of
the U.S. Constitution. This case was eventually appealed to and
affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a series of highly
publicized cases which came to the Court in the days and weeks
immediately preceding the November, 1994 elections, the Court
struck from the ballot a number of proposed constitutional
amendments and referred Acts, either because the wording of the
ballot titles was misleading or the publication requirement for the
amendments had not been complied with. The decisions generated a
large amount of public debate and calls for limits on the ability
of parties to bring such suits immediately prior to an election.
In another case which subsequently led the cause for constitutional
reform, the Court in Foster vs. Jefferson County Quorum Court
declared unconstitutional the assessment of a county ad valorem
tax. The case sent shock waves throughout state and local
government and, while later reversed, was the subject of intense
political and public debate. Finally, in a case which was of
limited substantive law importance, the Court found that a private
central Arkansas Christmas light display constituted a nuisance and
must therefore be abated. The case produced the largest amount of
coverage and extended public debate of any case in recent history.
Retirements/Appointments
The judicial system lost the benefit of a number of years of
judicial experience with the retirement of several long-term trial
judges. Judges Charles H. Eddy of Morrilton, Gerald Pearson of
Jonesboro, Paul K. Roberts of Warren, Henry Wilkinson of Forrest
City, Floyd Lofton of Little Rock and Jack Lessenberry of Little
Rock all retired after a number of years of distinguished service
on the trial bench. Judge Darrell Hickman, a retired Supreme Court
Justice who was later appointed to a temporary trial court
position, also left the bench. Newly elected trial court judges
include Judges Paul Danielson, John Fogleman, Sam Pope and Bill
Mills. New trial court judges appointed to a temporary term
include Judges Bob Lowery, Karen Baker, Ed Clawson and Larry
Chandler. The judiciary was saddened by the death of a sitting
trial judge, the Honorable Watson Villines of Conway.
Changes also occurred in the Arkansas Supreme Court with the
retirement of Associate Justice Steele Hays and the appointment of
his replacement, Justice Andree Roaf of Pine Bluff. Chief Justice
Jack Holt, Jr. also announced during the year his intention to
retire at the beginning of the 1995 fall term of Court.
Return to Annual Report Table of Contents Page
Last updated on February 6, 1996.
Tim Holthoff, Jackie Wright (arsclib@arkansas.gov)