Kentucky: Court of Justice

In 1975, leaders of the Kentucky judiciary and the Kentucky bar boldly undertook to re-create our Court of Justice and bring it into the modern era. Prior to the successful judicial reform effort, Kentucky courts operated under the 1891 Kentucky Constitution, which had been little changed with respect to courts from the 1850 constitution. Thus, Kentucky courts were an anachronism, and bench and bar leaders knew that modernization was needed.

Two areas cried out for change. First, Kentucky had a multiplicity of misdemeanor courts that were presided over, for the most part, by non-lawyer judges. There were county courts, magistrate courts, municipal courts, and police courts. It was not uncommon for the judges of these courts to be totally untrained in the law, politically partisan, and, in some cases, of dubious literacy. In rural areas, the judges were elected, but in urban areas, many were appointed by the elected county judge. There was a safeguard of sorts by the availability of de novo proceedings in circuit court. Thus, circuit court appeals were frequent, with the effect of duplicating earlier lower court proceedings. Our lower courts were a model of the inefficiencies identified by Dean Roscoe Pound in his celebrated work "The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice".

Another area that needed reform was the appellate process. Prior to the Judicial Article, Kentucky had one appellate court known as the Court of Appeals, consisting of seven justices. Virtually all cases were within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals as a matter of right, and appellate decision-making was exceedingly slow. It was not uncommon for a case to be in the Court of Appeals for two or three years, and the court made widespread use of appointed commissioners who were, for most practical purposes, appointed Court of Appeals judges. While the old Court of Appeals rendered many outstanding opinions, the process of appellate decision-making was expensive and time-consuming to the point that many lawyers and litigants had no practical choice but to forgo an appellate remedy.

With these and other shortcomings in mind, the leaders of the reform effort undertook to develop a model Court of Justice for Kentucky. Constitutional provisions were drafted and adopted by the 1974 General Assembly, and the process of voter ratification was set in motion. The proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the general election ballot for November 1975. Leading the opposition to ratification were rural county judges. For them, the issue was loss of judicial power and perceived relegation to lesser status. The leaders of the effort for ratification presented its positive features to the public and concentrated on urban areas. They reasoned that urban voters would be less subject to the influence of county judges and magistrates than those in rural areas. Moreover, they understood that substantial majorities in Kentucky's 10 urban centers would likely be sufficient to overcome anticipated losses in smaller rural counties. And so it was. When the votes were counted, the Judicial Article was adopted by a vote of 215,419 to 180,124 and Kentucky had a new Court of Justice - at least on paper.

In the following pages you will learn of the formation and operation of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). With a unified Court of Justice, it was necessary to have an administrative agency to manage budgeting, personnel, facilities, record-keeping, auditing, judicial education, and public information. These roles were assigned to the AOC. In addition to these fundamental responsibilities, however, the AOC was also assigned to manage Kentucky’s new pre-trial release service following the abolition of commercial bail bonding. Through the years numerous other responsibilities have been added to the AOC. Among these are management of juvenile services, information technology, drug courts, and other non-traditional functions of court management.

The Judicial Article (Sections 109-124 of the Constitution of Kentucky) is truly a wonder. In my tenure as Chief Justice, I have often consulted various provisions of the Judicial Article and felt a sense of amazement at the foresight of the framers. In simple, brief language, the framers designed a model judicial system. The first provision, Section 109, created a unified Court of Justice vested with the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Section 110 organized the Supreme Court, defined its jurisdiction, and outlined the powers of the chief justice. This section provided for the internal election of a justice as chief justice for a term of four years. It also provided that the chief justice shall be the executive head of the court of justice with power to appoint administrative assistants, to submit a budget to the General Assembly, and to perform other necessary administrative functions. Sections 111, 112 and 113 address respectively the organization, jurisdiction, and duties of the Court of Appeals, the circuit court, and the district court.

Prior to the Judicial Article, Kentuckians had no constitutional right of appeal. Appeals were governed by statute and the General Assembly was empowered to define appellate jurisdiction and otherwise regulate the appellate process. Section 115 of the Constitution established a constitutional right of appeal, and Section 116 granted the Supreme Court authority to make rules of practice and procedure for the Court of Justice. These provisions gave substance to other constitutional sections providing for separation of powers among the three departments of government. The Judicial Article also provided that justices and judges were to be elected from legislatively determined districts on a non-partisan basis; created an accountable process for the filling of judicial vacancies; determined terms of office; required adequate compensation; and authorized the retirement or removal of judges in the event of judicial misconduct. 11 Finally, Sections 122 and 123 established eligibility to serve in judicial office, and prohibited judges from the practice of law or pursuit of non-judicial elective office. Judges were also prohibited from holding office in a political party or organization.

Many provisions of the Judicial Article could be identified as extraordinarily important, but a few deserve special mention. The concept of judicial non-partisanship is firmly established in Sections 117 and 123. Section 117 also provides for the election of all justices and judges from legislatively determined districts. This is in contrast to the practice in many states whereby Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges are elected statewide. No serious contention could be made that the quality of an elected judiciary would be improved by statewide election rather than district-wide election, but the cost of district-wide elections is far less and geographic diversity is assured. From the perspective of judicial administration, the importance of Section 110(5)(b), which designates the chief justice of the Commonwealth as the executive head of the court of justice, cannot be overstated.

In the thirty years since the Judicial Article was adopted, the Administrative Office of the Courts has grown in size and sophistication. Numerous additional judgeships have been created and scores of new Court of Justice facilities have been built. One of our greatest achievements is our record-keeping system, CourtNet, whereby all courts in Kentucky are electronically connected with one another and the AOC.

The Judicial Article has stood the test of three decades. It has survived the birthing process, growing pains, adolescence, and reached a robust maturity. Proof of its durability is that only one amendment has been adopted, and that was to establish the Constitutional legitimacy of family courts. This amendment did not alter any fundamental provision of the Judicial Article.

In the pages that follow, you will learn the names and the roles of those who gave us this marvelous document. While many who were instrumental in its development have departed this life, their contribution remains as a legacy to this and future generations.

Joseph E. Lambert
Chief Justice of Kentucky
Frankfort, 2006

United At Last: The Judicial Article and the Struggle to Reform Kentucky's Courts