U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report State Court Organization, 1987-2004 October 2007, NCJ 217996 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sco8704.htm 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://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#sco ----------------------------------------------------------- Lynn Langton Thomas H. Cohen, Ph.D. BJS Statisticians ----------------------------------------------------------- From 1987 to 2004, state courts nationwide experienced a variety of structural and staffing changes, ranging from increased judicial staffing levels to consolidated court administration. These changes can be partially attributed to growing caseload pressures at the trial and appellate court levels. Over the 18-year period, total non-traffic case filings in state appellate and trial courts increased by almost 45%, from approximately 31.3 million in 1987 to 45.2 million in 2004. In addition to caseload pressures, growing numbers of state courts sought to consolidate and professionalize court systems that were highly fragmented. In terms of organization and structure, many state court systems traditionally had multiple trial courts which evolved as local institutions at the county or municipal level. Administratively, funding and rule-making authority were either split between state and local governments or fully assumed at the local level. The court reform movement, initiated early in the Twentieth Century, was aimed at reducing the fragmentation and disparity inherent in many state court systems. The movement focused on consolidating state trial courts, creating state-centralized court administrations for budgetary and regulatory purposes, and increasing professionalism among court judicial, clerical, and administrative staff. ***Footnote 1: Baum, Lawrence (2001), American Courts: Process and Policy, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.*** These efforts produced gradual and modest changes in state courts nationwide. By 2004, 10 states had consolidated their court systems by merging general and limited jurisdiction trial courts. Some of the responsibility for trial court expenses was also shifted from the county to the state. Since 1987 state courts have also become increasingly professionalized. Over half of all states have mandated that their trial court judges hold law degrees and take judicial education classes during their time of service on the bench. Some states have sought to professionalize the judicial selection process by moving away from party-driven elections. By 2004 four states at the appellate level and three states at the trial court level were no longer using partisan elections to retain judges. Increasing difficulties with obtaining qualified jury pools have also resulted in changes in state court regulations. During the 18-year period, the number of states allowing jury duty exemptions for professional, clerical, or governmental reasons decreased by 12. State court organization trend data examined From 1987 to 2004, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for State Courts released four comprehensive reports, State Court Organization, 1987, 1993, 1998, and 2004. These reports examined the organization and operations of state court systems in all 50 states. ***Foot note 2: BJS and the National Center for State Courts also produced a State Court Organization report in 1980. Due to changes in the data collection methodology, the 1980 data were not included this report. Information on obtaining the full text of each of the reports is available at .*** They included within-year, state-level data, such as court types in a state, jurisdictional levels of state courts, number of judges and support staff, use of expedited appellate procedures, funding sources, jury regulations, judicial education standards, and procedures for selecting judges.***Footnote 3: Throughout the report, the term "judge" is used to encompass all judicial officers.*** These prior reports on state court organization do not individually provide information on how state court systems have changed over time. This report combines State Court Organization data collected from 1987 to 2004 to examine change and stability in state court systems on a national level. It explores the major issues related to state court organization, including growing caseloads, court consolidation, increasing professionalism, the role of politics in the selection of judges, and the need for obtaining qualified jurors. Caseloads increased in state court systems nationwide State courts nationwide experienced increased caseloads over the 18-year period.***Footnote 4: All caseload data were provided by the National Center for State Courts, Courts Statistics Project.*** Total trial court case filings increased by approximately 45% in limited jurisdiction courts and 43% in general jurisdiction courts (table 1). (See adjacent box for definitions.) In limited jurisdiction courts, domestic relations case filings nearly doubled from 1987 to 2004 while in general jurisdiction trial courts, the largest increase was in criminal case filings (67%). Case filings also increased 32% in appellate courts over the 18-year period. State court judges and support staff increased From 1987 to 2004, courts adapted to growing caseload pressures by increasing staffing levels. State trial courts increased judicial staffing by 11% overall, adding 2,600 judges in courts across the country (table 2). In intermediate appellate courts, the number of judges grew by 25% or 195 judges. For courts of last resort, the number of judges has remained relatively stable. -------------------------------------------------------- Jurisdictional levels of state courts The organization of state courts varies widely, but each system combines some or all of the following four jurisdictional levels. Courts of Last Resort (COLR) -- Courts with final authority over all appeals. These courts exercise both mandatory and discretionary review. Most states have only one COLR. The exceptions are Oklahoma and Texas which have one COLR for civil cases and one for criminal cases. Intermediate Appellate Courts (IAC) -- Courts that hear appeals from general jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction trial courts as well as administrative agencies. These courts exercise both mandatory and discretionary review, depending on the state. General Jurisdiction Trial Courts -- Major trial courts hearing serious criminal or civil cases. Cases are designated to general jurisdiction courts based on the severity of punishment or the allegation/dollar value of the case. Limited Jurisdiction Trial Courts -- Trial courts with primary jurisdiction over lesser criminal and civil manners, including misdemeanors, small claims, traffic, parking, and infractions. These courts can also handle the preliminary stages of felony cases. -------------------------------------------------------- Similar increases occurred among support staff for judges in state appellate courts. About 700 additional law clerks were employed in intermediate appellate courts in 2004, an increase of 55% from 1987. In courts of last resort, the number of law clerks increased by 27%. Ratio of judges per 100,000 persons dropped slightly Despite increases, the number of state court judges has not kept up with population growth. From 1987 to 2004, the ratio of trial judges to the population nationwide decreased slightly from 10 to 9 judges per 100,000 persons. Use of specialized jurisdiction courts expanded Specialty jurisdiction or problem-solving courts, such as drug, family, mental health, and domestic violence courts, became more common over the 18-year period. States developed and expanded the use of these courts to address the large populations of specific types of offenders revolving through the courts and correctional institutions. These specialty courts were designed to couple case-specific treatment services with the administration of justice. The drug court movement in particular spread across the country. In 1989 Florida established the very first drug court in the country. By 2004 every state except South Dakota had created a specialized drug court treatment program. Majority of state appellate courts embraced expedited procedures From 1993 to 2004, the percentage of state appellate courts using expedited procedures increased. The percentage of states using expedited procedures in courts of last resort rose from 38% to 82% (table 3). The percentage using expedited procedures in intermediate appellate courts increased from 37% to 85%. Expedited procedures include pre-argument settlement conferences, expedited briefing procedures, oral arguments in lieu of full written briefs, fast tracking, and submission on briefs alone. ------------------------------------------------------ Intermediate appellate courts established to alleviate caseload burdens on courts of last resort A century ago about a third of state court systems included an intermediate appellate court (IAC). The majority of states had only one appellate court known as the Court of Last Resort (COLR). As state court caseloads increased, state legislatures began establishing a system of intermediate appellate review to reduce the burden on COLRs.***Pound, Roscoe (1940), Organization of Courts, Boston: Little, Brown and Company***. Nationwide the largest increase in the establishment of IACs occurred between 1972 and 1980. During that time, the number of courts increased by nearly 50%. Even though no new IACs were created from 1998 to 2004, the number of IAC judges increased by an average of seven judges per year during this period. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- Illinois and New York: opposite ends of trial court unification In 1964 Illinois was the first state court system to become unified. All trial courts in Illinois were consolidated into a unified circuit court with one chief judge overseeing the operations and procedures in each division. In 2004 Illinois' state court system included 1 court of last resort, 1 intermediate appellate court divided into 5 districts, and 1 court of general jurisdiction sectioned into 22 trial court divisions. From 1987 to 2004 most trial court expenses in Illinois were funded entirely at the state level. Counties were responsible for funding at least part of the operating and property expenses associated with the courthouse buildings in their jurisdictions. In contrast, New York's state court system in 2004 included 1 court of last resort, 2 intermediate appellate courts, 2 types of general jurisdiction trial courts divided into 69 divisions, and 8 types of limited jurisdiction trial courts separated into 1,695 divisions. In New York's numerous Town and Village Justice Courts most expenses, including salaries, travel, building, and property expenses, were funded at the county level. ------------------------------------------------------ Few states adopted unified court systems The majority of state court systems remained nonunified from 1987 to 2004. The most substantial increase in state court unification occurred during the mid-1990s when the number of states with a unified court system rose from four to nine. By 2004, 10 states had court systems classified as unified: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. ***Footnote 5: No state court system actually meets all of the criteria for total unification. In some of the 10 states, unification refers to consolidated trial courts while in others it refers to centralized administration or funding. States self-designated their court systems as unified or not unified***. Trial courts and judges shifted from limited to general jurisdiction Technically, a unified state court system has no limited jurisdiction courts, one type of general jurisdiction court with few jurisdictional divisions, and all trial court judges serving in a general jurisdictional capacity. A nationwide movement towards unification would involve a decrease in the total number of court types and judges classified as limited rather than general jurisdiction. From 1987 to 2004, the number of court types decreased, as did the percentage of courts classified as limited rather than general jurisdiction (table 4). While the total number of trial court judges increased from 1987 to 2004, a greater portion of this increase occurred in the general jurisdiction courts. In 1987, 33% of the approximately 24,000 total trial court judges served in general jurisdiction courts, compared to 39% out of about 27,000 total trial court judges in 2004. ------------------------------------------------------------- California adopts a statewide system In 1998 California passed a constitutional amendment (Proposition 220) allowing counties to voluntarily merge their general and limited jurisdiction courts into a single superior court. Proponents of California's Proposition 220 convincingly argued that court unification could save the state millions of dollars annually, increase judicial efficiency, and improve court administration and record keeping. By 2001 California's trial courts were fully unified with all 58 counties operating as a single, statewide court system. The unification of California's court system resulted in municipal court judges becoming superior court judges. This shift was responsible for the majority of the nationwide increase in the percentage of general compared to limited jurisdiction judges from 1998 to 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------- States slow to fully fund trial courts Historically, state trial court budgets have been funded at the local level or through some combination of state and local support. From 1987 to 2004, the number of states fully funding both general and limited jurisdiction trial court expenses increased. The largest increase was in the number of states funding general operating expenses in general jurisdiction courts, which increased from 15 to 22 states (table 5). More states required judges to have law degrees Increasing professionalism in state courts is illustrated by the greater percentage of trial courts that required judges to hold a law degree in 2004 compared to 1987. The increase in the percentage of trial courts requiring all judges to have graduated law school and passed the state bar exam was most pronounced in the limited jurisdiction trial courts. In 1987, 44% of these courts required judges to have a law degree compared to 52% in 2004. Judicial pre-bench and continuing education requirements more common in 2004 An increasing number of states established pre-bench and continuing education requirements for appellate and trial court judges. These requirements refer to any training courses, beyond general state bar membership requirements, that are specifically mandated for judges before taking office (pre-bench) or during their tenure (continuing education). Judicial training typically covers topics such as rules of evidence, criminal law and procedure, ethics, judicial responsibilities, and court and trial management. From 1993 to 2004, the number of states that instituted pre-bench education requirements for appellate judges rose from five to nine (table 6). For trial court judges, six additional states at the limited jurisdiction level and seven at the general jurisdiction level established pre-bench education requirements during the 18-year period. The largest increase in continuing education requirements was among the appellate courts where 10 additional states began mandating periodic training for judges already serving on the bench. Use of active sentencing commissions fluctuated State sentencing commissions are created by statute and have authority to establish and review sentencing policies and practices.***Footnote 6: Additional information on state sentencing commissions is available at ***. From 1987 to 2004 the number of states with active sentencing commissions fluctuated. At the lowest point, 15 states had active sentencing commissions in 1987. The number peaked in 1993 when 25 states had these commissions. Increased use of judicial nominating committees to select judges Over the 18-year period, an increased number of states used judicial nominating committees, or "merit selection," to select judges. Judicial nominating committees are nonpartisan groups of public officials, attorneys, and private citizens tasked with developing a short list of qualified candidates to fill an open judicial position. The judicial appointing body must then select a judge from the list provided by the committee. By 2004, 36 states had incorporated judicial nominating committees into the judicial selection process. Large proportion of appellate and trial judges were appointed to fill initial terms From 1987 to 2004 over half of all states appointed appellate judges to their initial full term on the bench (table 7). Forty percent of states also appointed general jurisdiction trial court judges. ------------------------------------------------------------- Methods of judicial selection and retention Methods of judicial selection vary from state to state and can vary within a state from trial to appellate judges. States have historically used one or more of the following methods to select judges. Appointment-- Judges can be appointed by the governor, the legislature, or by the chief justice/judge of the court of last resort. In an increasing number of states, a judicial nominating committee provides the appointing body with a limited number of judicial candidates from which to choose. Partisan election -- The judge runs for office in a contested election with a party's endorsement and name entered on the ballot. Nonpartisan election -- The judge runs in a contested election but no political party is declared or entered on the ballot. Retention election -- A judge who has been serving on the bench is entered on the ballot at the end of the term. The judge does not face an opponent and voters simply vote on whether the judge should be retained in office. If a majority vote "yes," the judge is retained. ------------------------------------------------------------ Majority of judges seeking to retain post had to run for election Approximately 38 states used an election, either partisan, nonpartisan, or retention, to select appellate and trial court judges for retention terms (table 8). Throughout the 18-year period, the most prominent form of election for appellate judges appeared to be retention election. For trial court judges, nonpartisan election was the leading method for retention. The greatest change in the process for retaining appellate judges was the decline in the number of states using partisan elections, from eight in 1987 to four in 2004. At the trial court level, the number of states using partisan elections decreased from 11 to 8, while the number using nonpartisan elections for judicial retention increased from 16 to 20. Majority of states continued to use a 12-person, unanimous jury for felony trials In the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two separate cases that a jury could be comprised of as few as six jurors without violating a defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury.***Footnote 7: Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970); Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973)***. The majority of states permit less than a 12-member jury for misdemeanor cases.***Footnote 8: Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Organization, 2004 ***. However, the number of states adhering to a 12-person jury requirement for all felony cases in general jurisdiction trial courts remained unchanged at 45 (table 9). Nearly all states from 1987 to 2004 required a unanimous jury decision in felony cases. Fewer persons exempted from jury duty Jury duty exemptions have historically been allowed for professions, such as doctor, lawyer, elected official, clergymen, and active military personnel. Exemptions were also given for medical or child care reasons. To expand the jury pool, 12 states eliminated exemptions from 1987 to 2004. By 2004 less than half of the states acknowledged any grounds for jury duty exemption. ------------------------------------------------------------ Judicial terms of office The term of office for which a judge is being selected can dictate the method of selection used. There are three main judicial terms of office, but not all states have all three terms. Unexpired term -- When a judicial seat becomes vacant prior to the official end of term, a replacement must be selected to serve the remainder of the term. In almost all states that fill unexpired terms, judges are appointed to the position. In several states, the term ends when the judge departs the bench, leaving no unexpired terms. Initial/full term -- Depending on the state, a judge serves the first full term either upon initial selection or upon retention following the completion of an unexpired term. Judicial term lengths vary from two years to life depending on the state and whether the judge serves in an appellate or trial court. Retention term -- Except in the three states appointing judges to serve until age 70 or for life (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), a judge must be retained on the bench at the end of each full term. This can be done through either election or appointment. ------------------------------------------------------------- Methodology BJS, in conjunction with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), has produced five State Court Organization reports, covering the years 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998, and 2004. The 1987-2004 reports contain similar information and provide a comprehensive picture of each state's court system. All four reports include data on court system structure, number of judges and support staff, judicial selection and service, funding, jurisdiction of the courts, and jury trial regulations. For these reports, data were collected through several surveys mailed to state court administrators in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. One data collection was an administrative survey that addressed aspects of court organization and operation. A separate survey was specifically designed to collect descriptive information about the appellate courts. Most of the information in the surveys was self-reported by each state system. Researchers at the NCSC compiled the data on statewide laws and legal procedure. After all of the tables were completed, state court administrators verified that all data for their state were accurate. This report uses the standardized 1987-2004 data to describe the changes and consistencies in state courts over the 18-year period. It presents nationwide trend information on the general areas covered by the four previous reports, as well as state court caseload data collected through the NCSC's annual companion series to State Court Organization, State Court Caseload Statistics. The variables compiled for the trend study reflect each of the sections in State Court Organization and reference some of the long-standing issues for state court systems. The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico were excluded from this study. The State Court Organization reports for 1998 and 2004 are available online at . For information on obtaining paper copies of any of the reports, visit the BJS web site at . Additional information and report links can be found on the National Center for State Courts web site at . The Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Science Research (ICPSR) also warehouses several datasets for the individual 1998 and 2004 State Court Organization reports. These datasets can be downloaded for an in-depth nationwide analysis of state court organization for the individual years 1998 and 2004. The ICPSR web site on State Court Organization also contains the data collection surveys mailed to the state court administrators and appellate court clerks. The State Court Organization reports, datasets, and data collection surveys can be accessed at the ICPSR web site at . ------------------------------------------------------------- This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: . ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is the director. This Special Report was written by Lynn Langton and Thomas H. Cohen, Ph.D., under the supervision of Steven K. Smith. The multi-year dataset was compiled by Joanna S. Bradford, BJS statistical assistant. Steven W. Perry and Tracey Kyckelhahn verified the report. Neil LaFountain, William E. Raftery, Richard Schauffler, and Shauna M. Strickland of the National Center for State Courts Court Statistics provided comments, and Shauna M. Strickland provided data assistance. Joanna S. Bradford and Carolyn Williams produced and edited the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared it for final printing, under the supervision of Doris J. James. October 2007, NCJ 217996 ------------------------------------------------------------- End of file 10/31/2007 RK