Raw feelings in the Arkansas Justice Building over workload, pay | Arkansas Blog

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Raw feelings in the Arkansas Justice Building over workload, pay

Posted By on Sat, May 20, 2017 at 11:39 AM

click to enlarge ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS: A jab at Arkansas Supreme Court in opinion this week.
  • ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS: A jab at Arkansas Supreme Court in opinion this week.

Strained relations between the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals broke into public view this week.

As I reported yesterday on my daily newscast (but regrettably failed to include on the written Arkansas Blog), people are talking about a Court of Appeals ruling that complained about the Supreme Court dumping the judicial drudge work of considering prisoner appeals for post-conviction relief on the Court of Appeals.

The opinion was written by Judge Philip Whiteaker. Before taking up the petition in question, Whiteaker took pains to address how the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction. He wrote that rules written by the Supreme Court had exclusively reserved these cases to the Supreme Court until March 2.

Then, wrote Whiteaker, the Supreme Court "without effectuating a rule change and without any explication or further explanation as to why it was no longer required by law to hear such cases, summarily transferred a majority of its Rule 37 cases to this court by means of a footnote in an unsigned per curiam opinion."

Whittaker's opinion noted also as to Supreme Court jurisdiction over post-conviction petitions: "To assist in the exercise of this jurisdiction, the supreme court employed, and still employs for its exclusive use, an entire office to handle these types of cases."

Pretty pointed, I'd say. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette also recounted the opinion this morning.

Other helpful background on this:

* This opinion came down the same week that Chief Justice Dan Kemp went before the independent state commission that sets judicial salaries and asked for an 11 percent pay raise for the Supreme Court, but only  a 2 percent raise for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. He talked of the Supreme Court's workload.

* Several Supreme Court members have long been rankled that they make only $5,000 more than the Court of Appeals — $166,500 to $161,500. The Chief Justice makes $180,000, compared with $164,000 for chief judge of the court of appeals (Rita Gruber, recently appointed to that position by Kemp.)

* Whiteaker was joined in his opinion by not only Gruber, but also by four other members of the Court of Appeals — Robert Gladwin, Mark Klappenbach, Larry Vaught and Waymond  Brown.

* The Supreme Court has never liked that the Court of Appeals judges get mileage expenses to drive from their residences. However, Court of Appeals judges are elected by geographic zones, the Supreme Court is not. Court of Appeals judges are required to be residents of the zones they serve. There is no such requirement for Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court also is moving, in the digital age, to video conferencing and other means of information exchange that make it easier to serve without coming to Little Rock often, except for oral arguments, if they choose not to make Little Rock a permanent residence.

* Bad blood still lingers in the Justice Building over a variety of political issues — ranging from how the same-sex marriage case was handled; to the Supreme Court's dismissal of most of a batch of ethics rule changes suggested by the Arkansas Bar Association;  to pay, staffing and promotions in the Administrative Office of the Courts, including an upending of a pay plan proposed by an outgoing administrator in favor of several cutbacks (by a court seeking an 11 percent pay raise).

* By sheer case count, the Court of Appeals turns out far more cases in any given week than the Supreme Court, though the supremes would undoubtedly argue their work is more important. (16 to 5 published opinions last week, for example. The Supreme Court has seven members, the Court of Appeals 12.)

* It would not be like some members of the Supreme Court to remain silent about this injudicious jab from an inferior court.

Tags: , , , , , ,


Favorite

Comments (12)

Showing 1-12 of 12

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-12 of 12

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

Readers also liked…

  • Little Rock school activists announce events for 60th anniversary of Central High crisis

    The group is not affiliated with the official "Reflections of Progress" commemoration of the 60th anniversary. However, at least two of the Little Rock Nine may be joining the group for an event at 2:30 p.m. at the state Capitol in the Old Supreme Court Chamber.
    • Sep 14, 2017
  • Trump tariffs hit farmers hard

    Well, the trade war has begun and the early returns for farmers are not good — sharp reductions in the prices for soybeans and corn. You may have heard that Arkansas, which overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump, has some agricultural interests, particularly in soybeans.
    • Jul 6, 2018
  • Arkansas legislature rejects bipartisan effort to study race relations

    On Friday, the Arkansas Legislative Council soundly rejected a bipartisan effort by two senators to to create a temporary legislative subcommittee to study race relations in the state.
    • Sep 15, 2017

Most Recent Comments

 

© 2019 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation