Judges; increases number in 19th and 25th Judicial Districts. (SB57)

Introduced By

Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston) with support from co-patron Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke)

Progress

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

Description

Number of district court judges. Increases from seven to eight the number of juvenile and domestic relations district court judges in the 19th Judicial District (Fairfax, Fairfax County) and increases from three to four the number of general district court judges in the 25th Judicial District (Covington, Lexington, Staunton, Buena Vista, Waynesboro, Highland, Augusta, Rockbridge, Bath, Alleghany, Botetourt, and Craig). This bill is a recommendation of the Committee on District Courts. Amends § 16.1-69.6:1, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Status

04/08/2016: signed by governor

History

DateAction
12/16/2015Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16103022D
12/16/2015Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/18/2016Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (10-Y 5-N) (see vote tally)
01/18/2016Rereferred to Finance
01/18/2016Committee substitute printed 16104448D-S1
01/18/2016Incorporates SB347
01/21/2016Impact statement from DPB (SB57S1)
02/03/2016Reported from Finance (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2016Read second time
02/05/2016Reading of substitute waived
02/05/2016Committee substitute agreed to 16104448D-S1
02/05/2016Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB57S1
02/08/2016Read third time and passed Senate (39-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/11/2016Placed on Calendar
02/11/2016Read first time
02/11/2016Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/18/2016Assigned App. sub: Civil Law
02/18/2016Assigned Courts sub: Civil Law
02/22/2016Subcommittee recommends reporting (10-Y 0-N)
03/02/2016Reported from Courts of Justice with amendment (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/04/2016Read second time
03/07/2016Passed by for the day
03/08/2016Read third time
03/08/2016Committee amendment agreed to
03/08/2016Engrossed by House as amended
03/08/2016Passed House with amendment BLOCK VOTE (97-Y 1-N)
03/08/2016VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (97-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
03/09/2016House amendment agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/11/2016Enrolled
03/11/2016Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB57ER)
03/11/2016Signed by Speaker
03/14/2016Signed by President
03/16/2016Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on 3/16/16
03/16/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Sunday, April 10, 2016
03/18/2016Impact statement from DPB (SB57ER)
04/08/2016G Approved by Governor-Chapter 728 (effective 7/1/18)
04/08/2016G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0728)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 3 clips in all, totaling 3 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

RELATING TO NUMBER OF DISTRICT COURT JUDGES. THE SENATOR NORTHERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR HOW WELL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE THE BILL PASS AND SPEAKING TO THE BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. THIS IS A REQUEST OF THE SUPREME COURT IT IS TO ADD TWO JUDGESHIPS. ONE IN THE 19TH JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT AND THE OTHER IN THE 25TH DISTRICT GENERAL DISTRICT COURT. THESE ARE THE TWO AND THE ONLY TWO ACTUALLY DISTRICT COURTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT COURTS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 57 PASS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILLE S AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 39, NOS 1. AYES 3-9D, NOS 1. THE BILL PASSES. SENATE BILL 153, A BILL RELATING TO TAXES FOR CERTAIN LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS. THE SENATOR FROM SPOTSYLVANIA, SENATOR REEVES.

Sen. Bryce Reeves (R-Spotsylvania): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL AND SPEAKING TO THE BILL.


Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield): AUGUSTA GENERAL DISTRICT, AND SO THE STUDY SAYS THAT THESE JUDGES ARE NEEDED. NOW, HERE'S WHERE THE POLITICS COMES IN, BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO AUTHORIZE THESE, THEN WE CREATE A BIGGER FIGHT ON THE BUDGET, AND SO MOST LIKELY, THESE WOULD NOT EVEN BE FUNDED ANYWAYS BECAUSE THE IMPLIED NEED IS NOT HIGH ENOUGH. SO OUR SOLUTION IS TO ASK THAT YOU PASS THIS WITH THESE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS MAKE THESE JUDGE SEATS EFFECTIVE IN 2018, WHICH TAKES IT OUT OF THIS BI-ENAL BUDGET. -- BI-ANNUAL BUDGET. I HOPE YOU WOULD ADOPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.

[Unknown]: THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL SAY AYE, THOSE OPPOSED, NO.

Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield): THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: AND SENATE BILL 750 HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR CALENDAR AND TAKEN BY FOR THE DAY. SHALL THE BLOCK VOTE PASS?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.


[Unknown]: HOUSE WITH AMENDMENT. THE SENATOR FROM NORTHERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR HOWELL.

Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston): I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE HOUSE AMOUNT. THIS IS A BILL THAT AUTHORIZES INCREASING THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGES IN TWO DISTRICTS. ALL THEY HAVE DONE IS PUT A DELAYED ENACTMENT CLAUSE ON IT. I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE SENATE CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE AMENDMENT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston): AYES 40, NOS 0.

[Unknown]: AYES 40, NOS 0. THE SENATE CONCURS WITH THE HOUSE AMENDMENT. SENATE BILL 440, THE HOUSE INSISTS ON ITS SUBSTITUTE AND REQUESTS A COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM

Comments

Jenny writes:

This should not pass. The maximum number of judges for each district/circuit that passed two years, based upon a study conducted, should not be ignored. There are other jurisdictions that are actually in need of judges that this funding could go to. If you did not like the fact that you would lose a judge (which many jurisdictions have already accepted), then you should have fought the legislation when it was introduced previously.