• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Judicial Issues on the 2006 Ballot

November 12, 2006

Background

While judicial measures are not entirely uncommon on statewide ballots, it is fairly uncommon to see highly controversial measures dealing with the judiciary.  More typically, judicial measures are referred to the ballot by state legislatures, and tend to deal with non-controversial subjects such as retirement ages, terms of office, and compensation of judges.  Occasional measures dealing with the organization and proceedings of juries and judicial discipline and performance appear as well, and can be more controversial.

What’s on the ballot this year?

Seven states will consider measures dealing with the judiciary this year.  Of those, three were initiated by voters, and the remainder were referred to the ballot by legislatures.

Judicial Measures on the 2006 Ballot
State	Measure #	Topic Area	Type (a)	CA/S (b)	Pass/Fail
Colorado	Amendment 40	Term limits for supreme court justices and appellate court judges	I	CA	Fail (42.9%)
Hawaii	Amendment 3	Repeal mandatory retirement age for judges	L	CA	Fail (34.8%)
Louisiana	Amendment 6	Family and juvenile courts	L	CA	Pass (61%)
Maryland	Question 2	Circuit court en banc decisions	L	CA	Pass (77.8%)
Maryland	Question 3	Limit right to trial by jury in civil cases	L	CA	Pass (66.9%)
Missouri	Amendment 7	Forfeiture of state pension by elected officials and judges	L	CA	Pass (84.1%)
Oregon	Measure 40	Elect judges by district	I	CA	Fail (43.4%)
South Dakota	Amendment E	Judicial accountability commission	I	CA	Fail (10.8%)

a)  Type:         L = legislative referendum
                      I = citizen-initiated
b)  CA = constitutional amendment
     S = statutory

How does this compare to previous years?

In 2002, Oregon voters rejected two judicial initiative measures:  one was similar to this year’s Measure 40, and the other would have required that candidate lists for judicial elections include a “none of the above” option.

Nevada voters rejected term limits for judges in 1996.

In 1995, Mississippi voters rejected a term limits proposal that would have included judges.

Links to Outside Sources of Information

Note:  The inclusion of these links does not constitute an endorsement by NCSL of the positions that may be taken by these organizations.  The links are provided for informational purposes only.

Chief Proponents & Opponents of Specific Measures

Limit the Judges – proponents of Colorado’s Amendment 40

Colorado Term Limits Coalition – proponents of Colorado’s Amendment 40

Citizens to Protect Colorado Courts – opponents of Colorado’s Amendment 40

Our Courts Committee – proponents of Oregon’s Measure 40

No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee – opponents of Oregon’s Measure 40

South Dakotan’s [sic] for Amendment E – proponents of South Dakota’s Amendment E

No on E – opponents of South Dakota’s Amendment E

Contacts for More Information

Jennie Drage Bowser, NCSL contact for ballot measures information