Magistrates; reforms system by transferring appointment and supervisory responsibilities. (SB244)

Introduced By

Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston) with support from co-patrons Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke), Sen. Henry Marsh (D-Richmond), and Sen. Roscoe Reynolds (D-Martinsville)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Magistrates. Reforms the magistrate system by transferring appointment and supervisory responsibilities from the circuit court judges to the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court. The bill requires certain minimum educational requirements for magistrates and also broadens magistrates' geographical assignment from within a particular judicial district to regions established by the Executive Secretary. Amends § 15.2-1704, § 15.2-1710, § 16.1-135, § 19.2-119, § 19.2-152.4:3, § 19.2-34, § 19.2-39, § 19.2-43, § 19.2-44, § 19.2-45, § 19.2-46, § 19.2-46.1, § 19.2-48, § 19.2-48.1, § 19.2-5, § 19.2-77, § 19.2-81.3, § 20-70, § 20-84, § 27-32, § 27-32.1, § 27-32.2, § 27-37.1, § 37.2-1103, § 37.2-1104, § 37.2-808, § 37.2-809, § 43-29, § 46.2-104, § 55-205, § 55-230, § 59.1-106, § 59.1-98, § 8.01-126, § 8.01-537, § 8.01-540, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/08/2008Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 081724866
01/08/2008Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/21/2008Impact statement from DPB (SB244)
01/25/2008Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
01/30/2008Reported from Courts of Justice with amendments (14-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
01/30/2008Rereferred to Finance
02/05/2008Reported from Finance (12-Y 1-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/06/2008Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/07/2008Read second time
02/07/2008Reading of amendments waived
02/07/2008Committee amendments agreed to
02/07/2008Engrossed by Senate as amended SB244E
02/07/2008Printed as engrossed 081724866-E
02/08/2008Read third time and passed Senate (28-Y 11-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/08/2008Communicated to House
02/13/2008Placed on Calendar
02/13/2008Read first time
02/13/2008Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/14/2008Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
02/15/2008Impact statement from DPB (SB244E)
02/27/2008Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (11-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)
02/27/2008Reported from Courts of Justice with amendment (11-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)
02/29/2008Read second time
03/03/2008Read third time
03/03/2008Committee amendment agreed to
03/03/2008Engrossed by House as amended
03/03/2008Passed House with amendment (87-Y 13-N)
03/03/2008VOTE: --- PASSAGE (87-Y 13-N)
03/05/2008House amendment agreed to by Senate (37-Y 3-N)
03/08/2008Enrolled
03/08/2008Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB244ER)
03/08/2008Signed by Speaker
03/11/2008Signed by President
03/12/2008Signed by Speaker
03/12/2008Signed by President
03/27/2008G Approved by Governor-Chapter 691 (effective 7/1/08)
04/01/2008Impact statement from DPB (SB244ER)

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: HB903.

Comments

JWhigham writes:

THIS IS A GOOD REFORM ALL THE WAY UP TO REGIONAL AUTHORITY. AUTHORITY SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO COVER THE COMMONWEALTH.

Patricia Colgan writes:

Please table a portion of this bill. Magistrate refrom needs legislative study before implemented. Very costly proposal in a budget-shortfall year. Also, demoralizing to incumbent magistrates who are hard working 24/7 state employees.

James B. Simmons writes:

Since this is a Judicial appointment, then I feel that either the entire Supreme Court or at least the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should make the appointment(s). The Office of the Executive Secretary is not a judicial body, they are the administrative arm of the court. The actual appointment of a judicial officer should be made by a Judicial body or Judicial Officer.

Paul E. Gagnon writes:

This bill creates a new layer of government and will be costly over the next 10 years. A sleeker and fairer reorganization is possible. The plan has too many flaws and would not serve the courts or the Commonwealth very well.

Paul E. Gagnon writes:

This bill is deeply flawed. It creates a new layer of government and is overly ambitious. It requires things of magistrates, not required of judges. Had a large, representative group of magistrates been invited to the table we could have improved this bill considerably.It should be tabled until it can be improved.