The American State Court System: History and Organization - Assignment Example

Running Head: AMERICAN COURT SYSTEM The American Court System: History and Organization YOUR Introduction The American state court system has evolved over centuries into its current structure. Prior to the Revolutionary War—actually, prior to the Constitution of the United States being ratified in 1789—state law administration and enforcement was as diverse as the character of the people who settled the colonies. Justice in Rhode Island didn’t necessarily even resemble the way criminal and civil matters were adjudicated in other colonies; particularly those settled by the Puritans. After the ratification of the Constitution, however, state court systems began to coalesce and organize under a more centralized authority in cooperation with the federal system. This was, to some degree, the result of state constitutional implementation as well as the emerging strength of the Supreme Court, which interpreted matters of constitutional import that were applicable to the states. Despite the fact that many modern Americans tend to see the Supreme Court as the primary emblem of the nation’s judicial system, that “Court is only one tribunal among many and both lower federal courts and state courts contribute significantly to the operation of our federal system…[as they] perform the painstaking tasks necessary to the day-by-day adjustment of federal-state judicial relations (Wendell, 1949, p. 5). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the evolution of the state courts from the colonial period, through the post-revolutionary war eras, to how the modern system is constructed today. Pre-revolutionary Courts The Constitution of the United States was formally ratified in 1789 and brought with it a very different set of considerations upon which to found the notions of justice and judicial procedure. In colonial America, there was no Bill of Rights, no formally centralized (federal) court system, and the concept of Due Process was non-existent. Depending on the time, i.e., mid-seventeenth to late eighteenth century, each locality was under whatever form of judicial administration its founders chose to employ, e.g., the Mayflower Compact was an instrument of civil government every bit as much as the charter of the Virginia Company. In the Massachusetts Bay colony, Puritanism and religious fervor were so much a part of the fabric of daily life that membership in the church was the basis for voting rights and full participation in civil society (SageHistory, 2007, n.p.). So, while present in the sense of the adjudication of crime and civil complaints, pre-revolutionary war courts (which can’t be truly called “state courts” as there were no “states” until two years prior to the ratification of the constitution) represent a system of justice that was, from a modern perspective, badly in need of restructuring. Of course, the ratification of the Constitution changed the legal landscape of America forever. It firmly codified inalienable rights, interstate commerce, and the creation of both the federal and the state judiciary systems. As discussed below, the state courts assimilated into a more standardized structure in the years that followed. Post-revolutionary Courts After the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the courts embarked upon a process of sorting out the questions inherent in judicial federalism, which Solimine & Walker (1999) define as the “sharing of the judicial power by two court systems over the same land and people” (p. 5). Adding to the complexity of creating a cohesive system, were the political issues of the days following ratification—the words of Alexander Hamilton in 1788 that “the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” seemed to be borne out as the Supreme Court struggled to establish the regulation of national power and policy (Newmyer, 1968, p. 18). Differing political philosophies, from Jeffersonian limitation to Federalist expansions, proved to be crucible in which a stronger Court was forged. The discussion of the Supreme Court, particularly during the first fifty years after 1789, is relevant to the state courts in two ways. First, the legitimate power of the state courts was perceived through the prism of the national structure, i.e., executive, legislative, and judicial branches, with the judiciary expected to not only apply the law to criminal and civil cases, but also to interpret the state constitution and, by extension, the Constitution of the United States. Secondly, as the Supreme Court was and is the court of last resort, its development is key to understanding the way state courts craft their own decisions; particularly when there is a possibility that a state court action will rise to the federal level. As Abraham puts it, there are two side-by-side court systems “…that are wholly distinct bodies in the sense that they are created under different basic authorities: the respective national and state constitutions. The jurisdiction of these two systems may, and in some highly significant instances does, regularly ‘merge’ at the bar…of the Supreme Court of the United States” (1968, p. 138). Thus combined in terms of the flow of cases, the modern structure of the state court system is vital to the legal justice system of the state itself, as well as the entire country. This leads to the discussion of the state court system and how states differ among themselves set forth below. Current Structure The state court system is different in every state, which has an effect on the overall efficiency of that state’s system. While differences appear mostly in the lower state courts of limited jurisdiction, all states follow “the same basic hierarchical structure, with each level having its unique role in the process” (Donovan, 2007, p. 233). There are four general categories of state courts; trial courts of limited jurisdiction, trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate courts of appeal, and the state supreme court. Intuitively, the state trial courts of limited jurisdiction are where many of the differences between the states are found. Some states include family or probate in this category, some have justices of the peace, and some states have no trial courts of limited jurisdiction at all, e.g., California routes all matters to its superior court which is a court of general jurisdiction. The trial courts of general jurisdiction may be known by different names, e.g., superior court, district court, circuit court, and so forth, but they serve the same function; they are the court of first resort for any case and controversy originating outside the lower courts of limited jurisdiction, and the first review court for cases stemming from the limited courts. An appeal from a trial court of general jurisdiction will go to the state’s appellate court level. Again, states differ here as to the name of the court, i.e., the court of appeals in Arizona is equivalent to the appellate court in Connecticut, which is similar to the court of special appeals in Maryland. There are some states that do not have an appellate level court system, and in these cases the trial court of general jurisdiction is appealed directly to the state supreme court. All states have a state supreme court and appeals from these decisions go directly to the U.S Supreme Court in the majority of cases. The exception to this is if a federal claim can be construed in the facts and the litigant’s strategy is to begin in the state courts. At that point, litigants have the option of filing in a federal district court, appealing to a district court of appeals, and ultimately carrying their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In either situation, whether coming out of the state or federal system, the Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort and their decisions are binding on all lower courts, state or federal. Another significant distinction in the state court system is how the judges are placed on the bench. The majority of Americans are aware that the President of the United States appoints individuals to the federal courts, district courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court—ten minutes on C-Span during a nominee’s hearing, e.g., Judge Sonia Sotomayor who will soon be coming up for confirmation in the Senate, will demonstrate this process. In the states, however, voters are confronted with a variety of schemes for electing judges—and at times there is no vote at all. There are generally four ways of becoming a judge in the state courts; appointment, partisan election, non-partisan election, or merit plan. As if this were not complicated enough, many states have different judicial selection methods depending on the court upon which the judge will sit; an appellate court judge may be appointed while a trial court of general jurisdiction judge will be elected, and some will be chosen through the merit plan. Appointment is almost overwhelmingly gubernatorial in those states that appoint judges (Virginia and South Carolina have a legislative appointment process). The majority of states have elections, where judges are either partisan or not. The primary difference here is reflected on the ballot; partisan judges are listed on the political party’s line, and non-partisan judges are an independent listing outside of political party affiliations. The merit plan is also elective in nature, and normally takes the form of a question, which can be worded in two ways: Should this judge be retained (sometimes removed) or shall this judge be removed (or retained)? Voters, most of whom have no idea regarding the opinions and rulings of the specific judge, will either skip this part of the ballot, reflect their overall discontent with the state by voting to remove all judges or, conversely, indicate their general approval of the state of the state by voting to retain all sitting judges on the current bench. A word about politics is in order here, particularly as the current system reflects the politics of the President who appoints federal judges, the Governor who appoints state judges, and the party tickets for partisan elections (non-partisan and merit plan voting is theoretically politically neutral). If the national elections trend conservative, judicial appointments will follow suit, and vice-versa. Conclusion From colonial extremism like the infamous Salem witch trials to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the resulting construction of the court system to the modern state court system, it is fair to say that the judicial system of the states is designed to be as equitable as possible. Citizens are able to access a fair and impartial hearing of their issue and, if the outcome is unsatisfactory, may appeal to a higher court. This process can be repeated until litigants are satisfied (or out of funds) all the way through the state court system. Regardless of the nature of any claim, be it civil or criminal, the people have the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing. The structure of the state court system is designed to facilitate this process as efficiently and as fairly as possible. References Abraham, H.J. (1968). The Judicial Process. New York: Oxford University Press. Donovan, T. (2007). State and Local Politics: Institutions and Reform. Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing. Newmyer, K.R. (2000). The Spirit of American Law (G.S. Grossman, Ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. SageHistory.net. (2007). Massachusetts Bay: A Puritan Commonwealth. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://www.sagehistory.net/colonial/topics/NewEngland.htm. Solimine, M.E. & Walker, J.L. (1999). Respecting State Courts: The Inevitability of Judicial Federalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Wendell, M. (1949). Relations between the Federal and State Courts. New York: Columbia University Press. Read More