STATEMENT
OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
REGARDING
AMENDMENT 183 TO THE HOUSE BUDGET
MAY
7, 2002
If
adopted, Amendment 183 to the House budget would fundamentally
and unilaterally reorganize the judicial branch of government
without any prior consultation or deliberation. No major part
of government, let alone an entire branch, should be reorganized
without an opportunity for discussion, deliberation and comment
by those who manage the organization and those who are served
by it. Further, reorganization of an independent branch of
government without any input from the leaders of that branch
is particularly problematic in light of the constitutional
separation of powers and the constitutional requirement of
an impartial administration of justice set forth in the Massachusetts
Constitution. A comparable situation would be a legislative
proposal to restructure the Executive Branch without input
from the Governor, the agency heads and the people served
by the agencies.
The
Legislature enacted the major court reforms of our lifetime
only after extensive study and consultation with the persons
affected by the proposed changes. The 1976 Report of the Governor's
Select Committee on Judicial Needs, (the Cox Committee), the
Senate Committee on Ways and Means Agenda 90 Report on Modernizing
the Judiciary, the 1991 Harbridge House Management Study of
the Massachusetts Trial Court, and the 1991 Report of the
Boston Bar Association's State Court Study Committee each
relied on months, or years, of collaboration and discussion
among all interested parties with ample opportunity for public
input and review.
Indeed,
prior legislative changes of a much more modest scope have
proceeded with a great deal of care. After careful study,
the one trial system for civil cases in the District Court
was implemented initially in two counties, then two more,
then seven, and is still awaiting state-wide implementation.
Much study and discussion also preceded the elimination of
criminal trials de novo in the Superior Court in the late
1970's and the adoption of the one day/one trial jury system.
This type of studied deliberation has afforded an opportunity
for experimentation and review before wholesale revisions
are adopted that affect litigants, lawyers and judicial personnel
throughout the state.
This
amendment would affect virtually every aspect of the courts.
Given the complicated and interrelated workings of the judicial
system, it is difficult to predict the results of such massive
changes. With such a complex and significant restructuring,
deliberation and full consideration are even more critical.
As
we have done in the past, the Justices would welcome the opportunity
to work collaboratively with the other branches of government,
the bar and others who are served by the judiciary to examine
the workings of the judicial system in a way that would enhance
the public's confidence in the delivery of justice.
We
oppose Amendment Number 183.
|
