Meaningful access to justice is the most important issue confronting state courts across this country. There can be little doubt that we now have a state justice system in America that is slowly eroding while at the same time becoming increasingly too expensive for the vast majority of our fellow citizens. These developments, left unchecked, will have real consequences that will go to the very core of the American promise. They should concern us all.

Two recent events have us reflecting on the reasons why it is important to collect and share data. At IAALS, we have concluded our final study of Colorado’s Simplified Procedure (Rule 16.1), which was enacted in 2004. In Texas, the Supreme Court has newly adopted a Rule for Expedited Actions (Rule 169). Both rules intend to provide a shorter, less expensive process for smaller cases. They also have aspects similar to various short, summary, and expedited civil action programs in place around the country.

According to a system established in 1977 by constitutional amendment, the governor appoints judges to the New York Court of Appeals—the state's highest court—from names submitted by the Commission on Judicial Nomination. The Commission recently began the process of filling the first of two vacancies on the high court by offering seven names for Governor Cuomo's consideration.

Rather than being elected by the voters, Delaware’s judges are appointed by the governor with senate confirmation. Since 1977, Delaware governors have entered an executive order creating a judicial nominating commission to screen applicants and recommend the best qualified candidates. In the wake of several recent judicial appointments, Governor Markell praised this selection process in an online video.

Recently, during the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators, many state chief justices, court administrators, and legislators attended or participated in a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Center for State Courts. At this discussion, panelists addressed how courts should best handle the severe judiciary budget cuts impacting the nation's courts, especially in light of the public's increasing demand for court services.

Governor Chris Christie submitted nominees for two New Jersey supreme court vacancies to the senate. One of the nominees is a sitting superior court judge and, if confirmed, would be the first Asian American justice on the court; the other nominee is the director of the board of public utilities.

During the week of December 3, the U.S. Senate confirmed four nominees for district court judgeships in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Michigan. This is unexpected progress in light of disagreement among Republican senators over whether to take any action in this arena during the lame-duck session.

Senate Republicans are questioning whether some recent court appointees changed their party affiliation so that they would be eligible for appointment, and they have proposed a constitutional amendment that would require judicial applicants to have held their party affiliation for at least two years.

In the final days of North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue's term, she will be filling the supreme court vacancy created by the unanticipated retirement of Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson. Given the short time frame in which the appointment must be made, the governor has decided to forego use of the judicial nominating commission and make a direct appointment. As a necessary step, she entered Executive Order 137, “temporarily modifying” the selection process for all vacancies that may arise before she leaves office. We understand the time constraints but lament her decision.

The campaign for a seat on Louisiana’s supreme court has taken a negative turn, with the Democratic candidate sponsoring an ad attacking Republican Jeff Hughes’ record as a trial court judge.

As IAALS Online has covered previously, Governor Brownback and conservative state legislators are expected to pursue changes to the process for choosing Kansas’ appellate judges in the upcoming legislative session. An unfavorable judicial decision in a school funding case could lend momentum to those efforts.

This week, the Arizona Supreme Court will consider a proposal, backed by all three Arizona law schools, to let third year law students take the February bar exam prior to graduation. This proposal was created directly in response to the current legal market and the increasing cost of legal education. The Arizona schools believe this allowance would not only lessen law school debt, but would also help move students into the legal market sooner.