U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ---------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4802 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=47 --------------------------------------------------------- *************** Special Report *************** State Court Organization, 2011 Ron Malega, Ph.D., and Thomas H. Cohen, J.D., Ph.D., former BJS Statisticians From 1980 to 2011, the number of state trial court judges increased 11%, from 24,784 to 27,570 (figure 1). During the same period, the U.S. population increased 37%, and arrests in the U.S. increased 19%. Because of these increases, the ratio of judges per 100,000 U.S. residents declined 23%, from 13.2 in 1980 to 10.2 in 2011. In this report, judge refers to any judicial officer granted authority to preside over court proceedings. Data for this report were drawn from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) State Court Organization (SCO) report series. The SCO reports provide state-level data on court types, jurisdictional levels of state courts, the number of judges and support staff, funding sources, judicial education standards, and procedures for selecting judges. BJS previously released four comprehensive reports on state court organization covering survey years 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998, and 2004. The most recent SCO data collection explored the organizational structure and operations of state courts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia during 2011. ************ Highlights ************ * The organizational structure of the nation’s trial and appellate courts changed modestly from 1980 to 2011. * Six states added intermediate appellate courts between 1980 and 1998: Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, and Virginia. * From 1980 to 2011, the number of states with more than three types of limited jurisdiction trial courts declined from 31 to 21. * The number of states with one or no limited jurisdiction trial courts increased from 14 in 1980 to 21 in 2011. * From 1980 to 2011, the number of state appellate court judges increased 69%, and the number of state trial judges increased 11%. * All judges in general jurisdiction trial courts had some legal qualification in 2011, compared to 59% of judges in limited jurisdiction trial courts. * In 2011, 52% of appellate court judges were appointed to their initial terms, while 75% of trial court judges were elected to their initial terms. * In 2011, two-thirds of state administrative court offices had full responsibility for judicial education and court technical assistance. * All general jurisdiction trial courts juries were required to reach unanimous verdicts for felony or misdemeanor cases in 2011, compared to 47% for civil cases. ************************************************************ ************************************* Jurisdictional level of state courts ************************************* States organize their court systems differently (figure 2). In general, each state uses some or all of the following four jurisdictional levels to organize its court system: * Limited jurisdiction courts (LJCs)--also called inferior courts or lower courts, have jurisdiction on a restricted range of cases, primarily lesser criminal and civil matters, including misdemeanors, small claims, traffic, parking, and civil infractions. They can also handle the preliminary stages of felony cases in some states. * General jurisdiction courts (GJCs)--often called major trial courts, have primary jurisdiction on all issues not delegated to lower courts, most often hearing serious criminal or civil cases. Cases are also designated to GJCs based on the severity of the punishment or allegation or on the dollar value of the case. * Intermediate appellate courts (IACs)--hear appeals on cases or matters decided in GJCs and LJCs. IACs may also hear appeals from administrative agencies. Depending on the state, IACs represent the first--and often only--appeal because they exercise both mandatory and discretionary review of the cases they hear. * Courts of last resort (COLRs)--also called state supreme courts, have final authority over all appeals filed in state courts. Most states have one COLR, but Oklahoma and Texas both have separate courts for civil and criminal appeals. Depending on the state, a COLR may have either a mandatory or discretionary docket for cases it will hear. * California has a unified court system consisting of one type of GJC (i.e., superior court) and a two-tier system of appeals courts (i.e., court of appeals and supreme court). California’s court system does not use LJCs. In comparison, Georgia has a more fragmented court structure consisting of seven different types of LJCs (i.e., civil, state, juvenile, county recorders, magistrate, probate, and municipal), one type of GJC (i.e., superior court), and a two-tier system of appeals courts (i.e., court of appeals and supreme court). Such variations in state court structure are often reflected in court funding sources. Many LJCs are funded and operated at the local level (e.g., county), while GJCs are likely to be managed and funded at the state level. ************************************************************ ********************************** State court organization changed gradually from 1980 to 2011 ********************************** Six states--Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, and Virginia--added intermediate appellate courts (IACs) between 1980 and 1998. No states established IACs after 1998. In 2011, forty states had two-tier systems of intermediate and final review consisting of IACs and courts of last resort (COLRs) (table 1). While most states used one COLR and one IAC, some states used multiple COLRs or IACs. For example, Oklahoma and Texas used two COLRs and one IAC. Alabama, Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee used two IACs. Eleven states relied exclusively on COLRs for final review: Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In 2011, 46 states used general jurisdiction courts (GJCs) and limited jurisdiction courts (LJCs). Over the past three decades, states have decreased their use of LJCs. Thirty-one states had three types of LJCs in 1980, compared to 21 states in 2011. The number of states with one or no LJCs increased from 14 to 21 during the same period. California, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia operated without LJCs in 2011. See map 1 and map 2 for the appellatte and trial court structures for 2011. ************************************ The unification of trial courts in some states reduced the percentage of judges serving in LJCs ************************************ The movement towards unification in some state courts has reduced the number of LJC judges. The percentage of trial court judges serving in LJCs, compared to GJCs, declined by 12 percentage points from 1980 to 2011 (table 2). In addition, the number of GJC judges increased 57% from 1980 to 2011, while the number of LJC judges declined 6% (table 3). These trends were primarily a result of California’s court unification during the 1990s, which eliminated all LJCs and reclassified those judges to GJCs. The distribution of appellate court judges between IACs and COLRs also changed from 1980 to 2011. During the past three decades, the number of IAC judges increased by about 400 judges, while the number of COLR judges remained stable. Much of growth in IAC judges can be attributed to the six states that established IACs between 1980 and 1998. The number of judges serving in state COLRs is often mandated by state constitutions; therefore, the number of COLR judges remained relatively stable during the same period, decreasing by two judges (1%). ********************************** Three-quarters of all trial court judges needed some legal qualifications to serve as judge ********************************** The legal qualifications necessary to serve as a judge for a GJC compared to an LJC vary by state. In 2011, all GJC trial judges needed some type of legal qualification to serve as a judge (table 4). In comparison, 59% of LJC trial judges were required to obtain some type legal qualification to serve as a judge. ***Footnote 1 Examples of legal qualifications less than a law degree include taking a judicial education course prior to office or passing a legal certification exam other than the state bar***. Possessing a law degree was the most commonly required legal qualification to serve as a judge. Sitting GJC judges were nearly 3 times more likely than LJC judges to need a law degree. GJC judges were about 2 times more likely than LJC judges to need state bar membership or have had an active legal practice. ************************************* Trial court judges were more likely than appellate court judges to be elected into the first term ************************************* In 2011, 52% of appellate court judges were appointed for their initial terms by judicial nominating committees, governors, legislators, or other methods (table 5). Of the appellate judges who were required to be elected to their initial terms, 59% ran in partisan elections. Eighty-one percent of all appellate court judges were required to run in some type of election to retain their positions. The majority of appellate judges (52%) that ran for office did so in retention elections rather than partisan or nonpartisan elections. ***Footnote 2 In a retention election, a judge runs unopposed and is removed from office if a majority of votes are cast against retention. In a partisan election, a judge is listed with party affiliation, while in a nonpartisan election, the judge is listed on the ballot with no party affiliation***. Only 3% of appellate court judges served life terms in 2011. Among trial court judges, 75% were required to be elected to their initial terms. Of those trial court judges who ran in an election, 45% ran in partisan elections. For subsequent terms, 90% of all trial court judges were required to run in an election to retain their positions. Among trial court judges required to run in an election for subsequent terms, 48% ran in nonpartisan elections. Only 1% of trial court judges served life terms in 2011. ************************************************************ ***************************** Varied routes to judgeship ***************************** How judges come to the bench varies from state to state and may even vary within a state by type of court (e.g., trial compared to appellate court). States most often use one or more of the following methods to select judges: * Appointment: Depending on the state, judges may be appointed by the governor, legislature, or a COLR chief justice. Some states use nominating committees, which provide the appointing body with a limited number of candidates from which to choose a judge (map 3). * Partisan election: Judges may run in a contested election in which candidates must declare their political party affiliation (map 4). * Nonpartisan election: Judges may run in a contested election but do not declare political party affiliation. * Retention election: Sitting judges may retain their office through an uncontested retention election at the end of each term. Judges maintain their bench if the majority votes that they should be retained in office. ************************************************************ ************************************** Fewer states used partisan elections to fill appellate and general jurisdiction trial court judgeships ************************************** Twelve states used partisan elections to fill appellate court judgeships for their initial terms in 1987, compared to 8 states in 2011 (table 6). Four states at the appellate court level moved away from using partisan elections. Tennessee changed from partisan election to appointment by the governor, while Arkansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina changed to nonpartisan elections. Several states also moved away from using partisan elections to retain appellate court judges. In 1987, 10 states used partisan elections for the retention of appellate court judges, compared to 5 states in 2011. Arkansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina changed from partisan elections to nonpartisan elections for retention terms. New Mexico and Tennessee changed from partisan to uncontested retention elections. Fourteen states used partisan elections to fill initial terms of GJC trial judges in 1987, compared to 11 states in 2011. Arkansas, North Carolina, and Mississippi all changed to nonpartisan elections to fill the initial terms of GJC judges. The number of states using a partisan election for the retention of GJC judges declined by 4 states from 1987 to 2011. Arkansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina changed from partisan elections to nonpartisan elections for retention terms, while New Mexico changed from partisan to uncontested retention elections. ************************************** On average, judges serving in COLRs had the longest terms ************************************** The length of judicial term varies by state, type of court, and method of selection. Excluding states where judges served life terms, judges serving in COLRs had the longest average length of judicial term (8 years) (table 7). The average term for appellate and trial court judges was 7 years. Judges serving in COLRs had the largest range in judicial term (12 years), while judges serving in IACs had the least variation (9 years). ************************************** Salaries for trial court judges were most often funded by the state ************************************** Funding sources for GJCs and LJCs varied by type of expenditure. At least 50% of trial courts received their primary funding for the salaries of court administrators, research attorneys, court reporters, and judges from state funding sources (table 8). In comparison, expenditure items that were funded mostly at the county level included court security (57%), building property expenses (64%), pretrial services (61%), and Americans with Disabilities Act compliance (56%). While the majority of court expenditures were funded through the state, county, or a combination, 12% of state courts’ primary funding for court-ordered treatment expenditures came from other sources, such as federal funds or local fees. ************************************** Two-thirds of state administrative offices of the courts had full responsibility for providing technical assistance and judicial education ************************************** In every state, a central office is responsible for the administrative functions of the state’s trial court system. Administrative offices of the courts (AOCs) provide a wide range of services to support state courts. Of the 48 states and the District of Columbia reporting information, all state AOCs reported having at least some responsibility for providing research planning (table 9). Forty-eight state AOCs reported having at least some responsibility for providing information technology, state court statistics, serving as the liaison to legislature, and providing technical assistance. Thirty-three state AOCs had full responsibility for providing the courts with technical assistance and judicial education, and eleven state AOCs provided some type adult probation services to the courts (map 5). ************************************** Jury size and verdict requirements varied by court jurisdiction and case type ************************************** For GJCs, all states and the District of Columbia required a 12-person jury when trying felony cases (table 10). Fifteen states required such courts to have a 6-person jury when hearing misdemeanor cases. All states and the District of Columbia required juries in GJCs to reach a unanimous verdict for felony and misdemeanor trials.*** Footnote 3 3Kentucky’s GJC does not have authority to adjudicate misdemeanor jury trials***. For civil cases, 23 states and the District of Columbia required juries in GJCs to reach a unanimous verdict. Twenty-five states allowed LJCs to try misdemeanor cases. All 25 states except Delaware, Ohio, and Texas used 6-person juries. In Oklahoma, the LJC judge decided if the jury needed to reach a unanimous verdict in misdemeanor cases. Twenty-seven states allowed LJCs to try civil cases. All 27 states, except Delaware, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas, used 6-person juries. Eleven states required a unanimous verdict, while judges in Oklahoma decided if the jury needed to reach a unanimous verdict in civil cases. ************** Methodology ************** Data for the 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998, 2004, and 2011 State Court Organization (SCO) reports were collected by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) with funding provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Data collections prior to 2011 were mail surveys to state court administrators in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories. The 2011 SCO collected information from this same set of state court administrators, but the 2011 collection was primarily web- based with paper surveys made available for respondents that preferred or needed a traditional response mode. All SCO data collections obtained court information at the state and jurisdictional levels, depending on the type of information collected. A survey aimed at state court administrators was designed to collect information on court organization, administration, and operation. Separate surveys designed to collect descriptive information (e.g., budget and staffing) were sent to appellate courts and trial courts. While respondents provided most of the information to complete the survey, staff at NCSC also compiled information on specific laws, legal procedures, and legal practices that applied statewide. Data for this report were drawn from the five previously released SCO reports and the 2011 web-based interactive application tool. BJS summarized select data from the SCO 2011 Interactive Application (accessed in February 2012) to produce the narrative, tables, maps, and figures found within the report. This report also used select standardized SCO data from 1980 to 2011, created by BJS staff, to analyze trends in state court organization over three decades. The topics presented in this report reflect many of the themes common to the SCO data collections and highlight some of the long-standing issues relevant to state court systems. This report presents information for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It excludes information on Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories. For more information, see State Court Organization, 1980, NCJ 76711, BJS website, May 1982; State Court Organization, 1993, NCJ 148346, BJS website, January 1995; State Court Organization, 1998, NCJ 178932, BJS website, June 2000; and State Court Organization, 2004, NCJ 212351, BJS website, August 2006. For analysis of trends, see State Court Organization, 1987–2004, NCJ 217996, BJS website, October 2007. Data for the individual 1998 and 2004 State Court Organization reports may be downloaded through the Inter- University Consortium for Political and Social Science Research (ICPSR) website at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/landing.jsp. The 2011 within-year data set and the standardized trend data sets for 1980 through 2011 used in this report are available for download through the ICPSR website. ************************************************************ The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, collects, analyses, and disseminates statistical information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. William J. Sabol is acting director. This report was written by Ron Malega, Ph.D., and Thomas H. Cohen, J.D., Ph.D., former BJS Statisticians. Tara Martin provided verification. Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Tina Dorsey produced the report. November 2013, NCJ 242850 ************************************************************ *************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov **************************************************** ********************* 11/13/13 JER 9:45am *********************