Home

     
      There are 115 Circuit Judges in Arkansas located in 28 judicial districts. During the 2003 legislative session, efforts to add new judges in areas where the Judicial Resources Assessment Committee of the Arkansas Judicial Council had recommended the need were unsuccessful, primarily due to budget constraints. In debating the need for additional judgeships, Legislators also expressed concerns regarding the process for recommending new judgeships as well as the size and make-up of judicial districts and whether alternative approaches might mitigate the strain on judicial resources and thus the need for additional judgeships.
     In order to address these concerns, the Legislature established the "Circuit Court Apportionment Commission."¹ The Commission was given a simple charge: "To review the current jurisdiction of state courts and the number and location of circuit court districts and make a recommendation to the Eighty-Fifth General Assembly and the Arkansas Supreme Court."²
     The Commission issued a final report in November of 2004 (hereafter the Report). That Report contains a number of recommendations for improving the efficiency of judicial resources in Arkansas. However, the Report does not recommend adding or eliminating judgeships nor does it address the current number and location of circuit court districts. Rather, it recommends the continuation of a Commission, albeit composed of a slightly different membership, to tackle this difficult task for presentation to the Eighty-Sixth General Assembly in 2007. At this writing, it remains to be seen whether the Eighty-Fifth General Assembly will enact this recommendation.

Creation of New Circuit Court
Judgeships in Arkansas
     Since 1989, all legislation to change any of the existing circuit court districts through redistricting or to create additional judgeships must be accompanied by a letter certifying whether or not the proposed change meets the criteria of the Arkansas Judicial Council, which shall be certified by the secretary-treasurer of the Arkansas Judicial Council.³ In the event that there is no letter from the Judicial Council certifying that the proposed change meets the criteria, the law requires suspension of the Joint Rules of the House and Senate in order to withdraw a bill from the committee for action.⁴ To suspend the Joint Rules of the House and Senate requires a two thirds vote of each house.⁵
     In 1989 the Judicial Council created the Judicial Resources Assessment Committee (JRAC) to make recommendations to the General Assembly for new circuit judgeships. In the Eighty-Fourth General Assembly which met in 2003, JRAC recommended three additional judgeships: two in the Second Judicial District and one in the twentieth district.⁶ Neither bill was passed in committee nor was there a "do-pass" motion made for either bill.
     It is estimated that each judgeship costs the State $242,000. However, other estimates have placed this number much higher, due to travel reimbursements and indirect costs such as additional deputy prosecutors, public defenders and the like. Also, a shortage of courtroom space may require additional expenditures from counties where new judgeships are created. In addition, the counties are faced with costs associated with circuit judges, including office space, utilities, supplies and bailiffs. Recently, each County Judge from the Second Judicial District wrote JRAC in opposition to creating a new judgeship in that district due to the financial strain it would impose on the counties.⁷

Concerns Giving Rise to the
Creation of the Circuit Court
Apportionment Commission
     As mentioned previously, Legislators expressed concerns in the 2003 regular session regarding the process for recommending new judgeships as well as the size and make-up of judicial districts and whether alternative approaches might mitigate the strain on judicial resources and thus the need for additional judgeships. Statistics presented by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) indicated that, based on caseloads statewide, Arkansas may have more circuit court judges than are necessary. However, except for redistricting, there is no mechanism to reduce the total number of circuit court judges, nor is there a mechanism for shifting judges from areas that are over served (or "over-judged") to areas that are underserved ("under judged"). Therefore, certain judicial districts experience heavy case loads, backed-up dockets and long delays for trial dates, while others see relatively few problems. For those areas that are underserved, additional judgeships were normally recommended.
     Another concern is the size of certain judicial districts and the impact this has on the efficient use of judicial resources. It is suggested that large districts (particularly those with heavy caseloads) are inefficient. Efforts to divide the Second Judicial District were made in both the 1999 and 2001 legislative sessions.⁸ The bill did not get out of committee in 1999. In 2001, a bill passed in the Senate but was defeated in the House Judiciary Committee.

The Circuit Court Apportionment Commission
     The appointment process for the membership of the Arkansas Circuit Court Apportionment Commission was completed in January 2004. With the Commission membership slated, work began in earnest on February 27, 2004, with the first of six full Commission meetings.
     The initial meeting of the Commission focused primarily on defining the purpose and scope of the Commission's work in formulating a measured approach at achieving the duties assigned it under Act 1711. It was quickly ascertained that, in light of the fiscal realities present in Arkansas, inherent in the stated language of the Act was a directive to ". . . consider ways of improving the efficiency of courts and seek alternative ways to respond to increasing caseloads."⁹ Simply stated, the Commission needed to provide a realistic picture of current caseload and operational issues of the court districts and make innovative, cost-effective recommendations to ensure the efficient access to and delivery of justice to the citizens of Arkansas.
     The Commission developed specified areas of study interest and created four subcommittee structures to conduct in-depth analysis of the subject matter. The subcommittees established by the Commission were as follows: Caseload and Statistics, Caseload Reduction Alternatives, Public Hearings and Surveys, and Uniformity of Reporting.¹⁰ It is the work of the individual subcommittees that produced many of the research approaches and findings issued by the Commission in its final report.
     The task of reviewing caseloads and court district statistics presented a number of complexities. Arkansas is a diverse and regionally distinct state. This is surely one of our greatest attributes. That same diversity and uniqueness is found in our court system and presents difficulties when comparing pure statistical data across district lines. Combine that with concerns of data accuracy, differences in financial and staffing resources, population differences, infrastructure condition, and too many other considerations to list and one can see the obstacles that must be dealt with to produce effective findings. With that in mind, the Commission utilized three different methodologies to assess court district caseload and access issues, including raw data analysis, Delphi estimates and time studies.¹¹
     Raw data analysis represents the most simplistic, straightforward approach to reviewing caseload data from differing judicial districts. Under this approach, one simply compares the number of filings and case terminations in each individual district. Population data of each district can also be used to determine the number of judges in each district per capita. The Commission found that the primary advantage to this method was that the data needed on all judicial districts was readily available. However, raw data analysis, like all methodologies, does present certain deficiencies in regard to offering a complete statistical picture. The most significant being that all case filings are given equal weight no matter the actual judicial resources they require. For example, a complex class action case will be treated the same as an uncontested divorce. The data is also open to questions of completeness and accuracy because of the number and differing resources of the reporting agents which at the very least can create a perception of flawed findings.
     Delphi estimation is a caseload method designed to offset the lack of "case weight" present in raw data analysis. This is achieved by surveying judges (the judicial experts) to develop models as to how much time each type of individual case takes to process through the judicial system. Then each type of individual case filing in a given district can be multiplied by the established model time requirement. The end result provides a time estimate of the actual amount of time spent on cases in a district, taking into account the differing types of cases, which then can be divided by the amount of judicial work time available to give a picture of the number of judges needed. This type of analysis addresses the "case weight" issue and is very cost effective. However, there can be issues with the findings based upon the occurrence of time estimation inflation.
     The last type of caseload analysis is time studies. This method is very similar to Delphi estimation except that the time models developed for each type of case are based on averaging actual time spent by judges in processing the different cases. Judges actually fill out time sheets and log in the corresponding case activity over a period of time. Then a time estimate is established by averaging time sheet data from each of the reporting judges. The time estimate is then used in the same manner as in the Delphi estimation. Time estimation inflation is limited in this method. However, because of the intense record keeping, judges may become data fatigued and fail to insure all activities are logged at all times. In addition, there is a substantial amount of labor-intensive activities involved which makes the method more costly.
     Both the Delphi estimation and time studies models have been utilized by the AOC. The Commission compared the data derived from the respective findings and outlined that the two arrive at similar predictions on over- or under-judging in each individual district 61% of the time. The Delphi findings demonstrated a need for additional judges in five circuits and fewer judges in three circuits. Time estimation data showed a need for three additional judgeships and eleven areas of possible over-judging. The Commission found that the use of any data analysis method is most accurate when the data from a period of several years is viewed instead of a snapshot of a one-year period.
     Keeping in mind all the issues of diversity present in each judicial district previously discussed in this article, the Commission was very concerned that the unique challenges faced by each individual district in the administration of justice could not be reflected in pure statistical findings. Therefore, the Commission administered a detailed statewide survey and conducted public hearings in every geographic region of Arkansas. Information such as geographic size, district resources and population trends were also factored into the Commission's deliberations.
     Public hearings were held in Little Rock, Fayetteville, Hope, Jonesboro and Pine Bluff between July 22, 2004, until August 24, 2004. The Commission used the hearings as a tool to solicit information from not only lawyers and judges but also elected officials, court personnel and the general public regarding their actual experiences with the individual court district in which they had regular contact. Participation for each regional hearing was exceptional and provided detailed "real world" data on districts as to the everyday issues and obstacles faced by different judicial districts. The suggestions and information garnered from the public hearings were maintained in detailed minutes from each hearing and used extensively in developing the final recommendations.
     The statewide survey conducted by the Commission was intended to reach as many individuals as possible that have any significant contact with their judicial district. With nearly 900 respondents from 16 different professional relationship categories, the survey findings produced a balanced image of court districts from users and observers. The observations of the respondents were then cross-referenced with the statistical data to measure similarities between the findings of each method and to allow for as complete a picture as possible. Overall, survey respondents from all but two circuits (20th and 23rd) rated their districts' ability to process their caseloads in a timely fashion favorably. The survey also indicted a similarity with public perception and statistical data with regard to the areas that show a need for additional judgeships.
     In the end, the Commission utilized the various forms of statistical data, survey findings, and public hearing statements to make detailed recommendations to the General Assembly and Supreme Court. The following is a summary of the recommendations made by the Commission in its "Arkansas Circuit Court Apportionment Commission, Report to the Eighty Fifth Arkansas General Assembly and the Arkansas Supreme Court, (November 2004)."

Expanded Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution
     The Commission made the recommendation that the General Assembly, the bench and bar should support the expanded use of ADR. Also, it recommended that the AOC continue to educate judges as to the use of ADR especially as a tool to reduce docket and caseload pressures.

Creation and Use of Magistrates
     Under Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution, the use of magistrates is possible once again if the Supreme Court promulgates rules for their utilization. Most public comment on the issue focused on their use in routine, but time consuming, court procedures and highlight the use of district court judges as circuit court magistrates. The Commission recommended that the Supreme Court promptly establish a procedure to examine the use of magistrates in the court system and further establish implementing rules thereafter if warranted.

Jurisdiction of District Courts
     The public comment findings of the Commission revealed a consistent theme that district courts may be a powerful tool in relieving caseload pressures on circuit courts by shifting appropriate cases to the district courts. Again, Amendment 80 has made such action much more feasible by giving the Supreme Court the power to set district courts' civil jurisdiction. The Commission found no evidence to support changing the criminal jurisdiction of the district courts. The Commission did recommend that exclusive jurisdiction for district courts be raised from $100 to $5000 in civil cases and subject matter jurisdiction be expanded to include personal injury matters. It also recommended that the dollar limit for small claims cases be maintained at $5000, and that the civil division dollar limit be raised to $10,000.

Use of Special and Retired Judges
     The appointment of elected judges to sit outside their district to hear matters under special circumstances has been exercised by the Chief Justice for some time, but not to address the issue of lack of judicial resources. Likewise, the Chief Justice, under expanded constitutional authority in 1998, has routinely appointed retired judges to hear matters under special circumstances and to alleviate caseload pressures. The Commission recommended that the Chief Judge consider the expanded use of appointed, retired judges to target caseload-heavy districts to assist in reducing caseload pressure. The General Assembly should support this cost- effective practice by expanding the appropriation for the program and establishing funding for a small pool of full-time court reporters to serve those appointed. Also, the Supreme Court and AOC should provide an environment that promotes the temporary appointment of elected judges to serve in jurisdictions suffering from the greatest caseload pressures.

Use of Automation
     While automation is not a magical cure, it can help increase the efficiency of the court system. The state should continue moving forward in developing a state-wide, automated case management system to achieve this end. The Commission recommended that the General Assembly continue and expand its support of the Arkansas Court Automation Project until it is fully implemented.

Dual County Seats
     The Commission recommended that the General Assembly take the necessary action to eliminate dual county seats only for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction and venue of circuit courts.

Revision of Judicial Circuits
     As previously stated in this article, the Commission determined unanimously that it had not had sufficient time to make specific recommendations regarding the number and boundaries of circuit court districts. More important than political considerations is the fact that, as outlined herein, a proper evaluation of a judicial district's resources and needs requires a complex evaluation of a number of aspects ranging from filing data to road conditions. Such analysis, if done properly, takes time. However, the Commission did provide guidelines to be used in any future consideration of the reallocation of judicial district lines. It also recommended that districts determined by the General Assembly to need more judges receive such by the transfer of a judge's position from an over judged district upon resignation, removal, death or retirement. Lastly, the Commission suggested that the statutory mandate limiting the General Assembly's ability to act on the need of additional judges or changes in judicial district lines without a report from the Arkansas Judicial Council be removed.

Continuation of Commission
     The enabling legislation which created the Commission and outlined its duties only provided one year for its work to be completed. For an issue of this complexity and magnitude, that is simply not long enough. The Commission recommended that the General Assembly continue the Commission and the work assigned to it. In addition, it recommended a model membership composition to maximize its knowledge base and effectiveness.

Conclusion
     Most predict that the Eighty-Fifth meeting of the General Assembly, which begins in January of 2005, will be dominated by efforts to continue to meet the financial demands created by the Supreme Court's Lakeview school funding decision while also finding additional funding for Higher Education, Corrections and Medicaid programs. As a consequence, it is not expected that additional judgeships will be created. As additional constraints are placed on the judiciary as a result of increasing caseloads, it is expected that the measures recommended in the Commission's Report, such as expanding district court jurisdiction, the use of retired judges and the use of magistrates will be utilized in order to ease the strain. Ultimately, a better mechanism for shifting judicial resources from areas of decreasing caseloads to areas of increasing caseloads must be created in order to address this problem.

Endnotes
1. 2003 Ark. Act 1711
2. Id. in § 1(d).
3. 1989 Ark. Act 864 § 4, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 10-2-124.
4. Id.
5. Joint Rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Section 14.
6. House Bill 1423 and House Bill 1524.
7. Letter dated August 11, 2004, to Mary Spencer McGowan, JRAC Chairman     from Doyle Hillis, Poinsett County Judge and others.
8. There appears to be uncertainty as to the size of this district. According to the     AOC, this six county district has 4,254 square miles. However, according to     the Arkansas Geologic Commission, the six counties that comprise this     district are actually 4,480 square miles.
9. Arkansas Circuit Court Apportionment Commission, Report to the Eighty-Fifth     Arkansas General Assembly and the Arkansas Supreme Court, at 3     (November 2004).
10. Id.
11. Id. at 4.