Louisiana House Bill HB801

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

(Constitutional Amendment) Provides that the term of office for justices of the supreme court is six years (OR NO IMPACT See Note)

Impact

If passed, HB 801 would directly impact the structure of the Louisiana Supreme Court by shortening the terms of newly appointed justices. Proponents argue that this change could enhance judicial accountability, as shorter terms might allow for more frequent assessments of a justice's performance by the electorate. Moreover, advocates for the amendment believe it will encourage a more dynamic and responsive judiciary, potentially leading to fresh perspectives on the court. On the other hand, critics may contend that shorter terms could impede the continuity and experience of the judiciary.

Summary

House Bill 801 proposes a constitutional amendment to reduce the term of office for justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court from ten years to six years. This amendment would apply specifically to justices sworn into office on or after January 1, 2012. The proposal is intended to be submitted to the voters for approval in a statewide election, which is established to take place on November 2, 2010. The bill seeks to modernize the terms of office for these key judicial positions in the state's constitution.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 801 reflects a mix of support and skepticism. Supporters view the amendment as a positive step towards accountability and responsiveness within the judicial system, aligning the term lengths of justices with those of other elected officials. In contrast, some opponents express concern that frequent turnover among justices could detract from the court's stability and institutional knowledge, which are vital for the effective administration of justice.

Contention

The primary contention regarding the bill centers around the balance between judicial accountability and stability. Advocates for shorter terms argue that justices should be more directly accountable to the voters for their rulings and management of court affairs. However, opposing views emphasize the risks associated with reducing the terms of justices, highlighting that it may foster partisanship and distract justices from their duties. Thus, the discussion encapsulates broader themes of how best to manage judicial authority in a democracy.