NCJ Number
85894
Journal
Judicature Volume: 66 Issue: 3 and 4 Dated: (September/October 1982) Pages: 147-150
Date Published
1982
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Judicial impact statements theoretically appeal to planning-conscious administrators, but the benefits of formal impact statements may not outweigh the cost of producing them.
Abstract
During the 1970's, some States showed a sporadic interest in judicial impact statements, but none has embraced them as a requirement to accompany court-related legislation. This is true despite the fact that in many States court caseloads run far higher than the Federal caseload. There are several reasons why judicial impact statements have not taken hold at the State level and are unlikely to do so in the near future. The costs and difficulties of determining the impact of new laws on caseloads arise for States as they do in the Federal context. The procedures and membership of State legislatures vary, creating different problems in forecasting judicial impact. State courts are fairly successful in getting their concerns heard in State legislatures without the help of formal impact statements. In addition, many State judiciaries become involved in the legislative process even before bills are introduced into the legislature. Finally, the State courts' caseload problems differ from those of the Federal courts in that most State courts rely on simple statistical methods and an established working relationship with legislators to resolve problems presented by new legislation. Sixteen footnotes are provided.