WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

LC 849

Providing for random selection of substituted judges

2025 Regular Session

Establish a random selection process to appoint substitute judges when a presiding judge is unavailable, fostering impartiality and fair workload distribution.

(LC) Draft Died in Process
#courts #judgesandjustices
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · LC 849

Summary: LC 849 — Providing for random selection of substituted judges

Overview

  • Bill Number: LC 849
  • Title: Providing for random selection of substituted judges
  • Status: Draft died in process (LC); Drafter Assigned (Nov 6, 2024); Draft Canceled (Nov 19, 2024); Draft Died in Process (May 23, 2025)
  • Introduced: November 6, 2024
  • Subject: Courts; Judges and Justices; Juries and Jurors

This bill aims to establish a framework for randomly selecting substitute judges. The available summary and status notes indicate the core objective is to implement randomization as the method for appointing or assigning substitute judicial personnel when a regular judge is unavailable or otherwise unable to preside.

Purpose and Intent

  • To promote impartiality and fairness in judicial proceedings by ensuring substitute judges are selected through a random process rather than ad hoc or discretionary methods.
  • To potentially improve workload distribution and predictability in substitution assignments across courts.

Note: The specific mechanics, criteria, and scope (e.g., which courts or types of cases) are not provided in the available information. No text from the bill is included in the provided materials, so explicit provisions cannot be listed.

Key Provisions (as described by the bill’s title; text not provided)

  • Random selection mechanism for substitute judges when a presiding judge is unavailable, recused, or otherwise unable to hear a case.
  • Possible guidelines for how substitutes are drawn, the pool of eligible judges, and any eligibility or conflicts considerations (these details are not specified in the provided materials).
  • Procedures for notification, scheduling, and integration of substituted judges into ongoing cases or dockets.

Because the full bill text isn’t available, the above are inferred from the title. The actual provisions may differ in scope and detail.

Affected Parties

  • Substitute judges and other judicial officers
  • Courts and court administration (clerks, scheduling offices, administrative offices of the courts)
  • Attorneys, litigants, and juries involved in cases requiring substitution
  • Possibly county or district jurisdictions depending on the bill’s scope

Procedural History and Timeline

  • 2024-11-06: Drafter Assigned
  • 2024-11-19: Draft Canceled
  • 2025-05-23: Draft Died in Process

Status indicates the measure did not advance to enactment and is no longer moving through the legislative process in its current form.

Potential Impact and Considerations

  • If enacted, random substitution could reduce potential biases in selecting substitute judges and promote equal distribution of substitution duties.
  • Could affect courtroom logistics, scheduling, and administrative workflows; may require robust record-keeping and transparency to maintain public trust.
  • Potential challenges include implementation complexity, need for clear eligibility rules, and ensuring compatibility with existing judicial assignment practices.
  • Given the bill is categorized as “Died in Process,” any potential impact remains speculative unless reintroduced in future sessions with revised text.

Next Steps

  • If reintroduced, the bill would undergo committee review, public hearings, and potential amendments before any floor votes.
  • Interested observers should monitor for subsequent versions or new legislation addressing random selection of substituted judges, including the final text and fiscal implications.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.