Download Electronic Version - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SHOULD THE DISTRICf OF COLUMBIA HAVE RESPONSIBILITY? 41 eral asserted a compelling federal interest. 21 Such cases were to be prosecuted in United States District Court in the name of the Untied States,22 either with the consent of the local Attorney General, or,23 if consent from the local official was not forthcoming, via a non-appealable, automatic 24 certification from the Clerk of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. 25 More recently, the D.C. Council and Congress have considered proposals regarding local prosecutorial authority. In 1998, the D.C. Council, responding to a resolution introduced by Councilman David Catania, suggested transferring prosecutorial authority over D.C. Code violations to a local prosecutor. 26 The Council called for concurrent prosecutorial authority-matching the responsibilities of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. and the Office of the Corporation Counsel of D.C. with respect to D.C. Code violations-to be given to a local prosecutor. 27 At the federal level, Congress failed to pass the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2003. The bill, introduced by current D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Homes Norton,28 sought to amend the Home Rule Act 29 and various provisions of the D.C. Code 30 to create a District Attorney responsible for prosecuting local crimes. Finally, on March 1,2007, Congresswomen Norton introduced the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2007, which would establish an elected District Attorney.31 Any of these proposals would bring the District in line with all of the other state and local criminal justice systems and their reliance on democracy. The Council for Court Excellence takes no position on the specific means of accomplishing this important goal. 21 See id. § 216(d)(I). 22 See id. § 216(d)(5). 23 See id. § 216(d)(4). 24 Id. 25 See id. § 216(d)(3). 26 See generally PR 12-671, available at http://www.dcwatch.comJarchives/council12112-671.htm. 27 Id. § 3. 28 The bill was introduced by Congresswoman Norton on Jun. 4, 2003. It was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform on that date, but the bill did not reach the House floor for a final vote. See H.R. 2334 Bill Summary, THOMAS (Library of Congress), available at http:// thomas.loc.govl (select Bill Summary & Status; then 108th Congress; enter H.R. 2334) (last visited Jul. 19,2(06). 29 District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2003, H.R. 2334, 108th Congo (2003). Section 2 would amend the Home Rule Act by adding a number of sections, most notably § 496, to the Act. 30 H.R. 2334 § 3 would amend, among other provisions, § 23-101 of the D.C. Code (as codified in 2001). 31 H.R. 1296, 1l0th Congo (2007); see also Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Norton Introduces Bill for an Elected D.C. District Attorney As Part of Her Free and Equal D.C. Series, March 1, 2007, available at http://www.norton.house.gov/index.php (last visited Jul. 19, 2006).
ORGANIZATION, BUDGETING AND FUNDING OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S LOCAL COURTS* Peter R. Kolker** The mechanism for funding the District of Columbia's local court system reflects the unique and complex character of the District. The means and method of budgeting for and funding this vital function has evolved over the years, reflecting the maturation of the District from its pre-Home Rule days to the present. This evolution is a reflection of the District's growing pains and financial crises, as well as the unusual symbiosis and tension between the District and the federal government. The budget system is also the product of the limitations imposed on the District's restricted taxing authority, which results in a dependency on the federal government for functions ordinarily performed by local governments. The current budget system ensures a high, but not complete, degree of independence for the District's judiciary and provides for a relatively stable funding source. However, the system also limits the options that the District's legislative and executive branches have to allocate resources among programs by taking the courts' budget out of the equation. As the process has evolved, the local judiciary has become the financial protectorate of the federal rather than District government, since the courts apply directly to Congress for funds and are subject only to its budget decisions. The annual bill for the courts' operations and capital budget approaches $350 million, all currently sought from and paid by the federal government. In addition, there are substantial expenditures required to support other justice-related agencies, such as the Pretrial Services Agency, the Public Defender Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Furthermore, the District's Home Rule charter precludes the imposition of a commuter tax and real estate taxes cannot be imposed on the substantial federal and embassy property located in the District. Accordingly, a change in either the budgeting process or the organization of the courts and related agencies could not be realistically considered independent of a proposal to replace the substantial income contribution now made by the federal government as a direct expenditure. The starting point for an analysis of the current budget process is an understanding of how the D.C. court system evolved and was funded from the pre-home rule days to the present. * This essay was compiled by Peter R. Kolker after the Symposium on District of Columbia Democracy and the Third Branch of Government. Readers of this essay should note that the views, opinions, and some factual assertions expressed are formulated from Mr. Kolker's wealth of experience in the D.C. court system. ** Peter R. Kolker, Council for Court Excellence.
Page 1 and 2: University of the District of Colum
Page 5 and 6: THE HONORABLE PETER J. PANUTHOS, B.
Page 9 and 10: EIC LEITER 3 ered at the symposium.
Page 11 and 12: 6 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF COL
Page 13 and 14: MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR COURT EX
Page 15 and 16: THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDA
Page 27 and 28: WHO SHOULD APPOINT JUDGES OF THE D.
Page 37 and 38: 36 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 41: 40 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 45 and 46: ORGANIZATION, BUDGETING AND FUNDING
Page 55 and 56: EDITED PROCEEDINGS FROM THE SYMPOSI
Page 61 and 62: 62 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 65 and 66: 66 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr OF CO
Page 79 and 80: 80 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF CO
Page 85 and 86: 86 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF Co

Download Electronic Version - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?