Editorial: Judiciary could use more help

Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2000 | 9:35 a.m.

William Rehnquist, the chief justice of the United States, has used his annual message to Congress on New Year's Day to highlight judicial areas that are in need of serious reform. Two years ago Rehnquist brought attention to the Republican-controlled Senate's failure to promptly act on federal judicial nominees submitted by President Clinton. Last year Rehnquist used this opportunity to urge Congress to use restraint when considering the passage of federal criminal legislation that many legal experts believe is better left to the states.

His New Year's Day message this year also is relevant. Rehnquist's most pointed remarks were made regarding the fees for lawyers who accept appointments under the Criminal Justice Act. The Supreme Court's landmark 1963 ruling -- Gideon v. Wainwright -- found that all criminal defendants have the right to an attorney. If the defendant is indigent, then the court must appoint an attorney to represent him at government expense. Until 1999, when Congress approved a $5 raise, court-appointed attorneys in federal court were receiving $65 an hour for in-court work and $45 an hour for out-of-court work. But Rehnquist argues that $70 for in-court representation and $50 for out-of-court work by attorneys is still too low. The maximum hourly rates, Rehnquist contends, are woefully below the prevailing rates in the legal profession. Congress, Rehnquist believes, shoul d increase this compensation to $75 an hour. "Adequate pay for appointed counsel is important to ensure that a defendant's constitutional right to counsel is fulfilled," Rehnquist wrote.

Meanwhile, Rehnquist also mentioned how difficult it has been for the federal judiciary to keep pace with its growing caseloads. For instance, 108 judges handled less than 15,000 cases filed in federal district and appellate courts 100 years ago. But last year just 852 federal judges oversaw 375,000 of these cases, not counting the 1.3 million filed in bankruptcy court. Nevada, the fastest growing state in the nation over the past 14 years, has seen firsthand how a burgeoning caseload can overwhelm federal judges. Fortunately Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was able to use his position on the Appropriations Committee last year to secure two more federal judges for this state.

The chief justice noted that in addition to Nevada's two new judgeships, four were also created in Florida and three in Arizona. Still, Rehnquist believes that more federal judges are needed elsewhere, especially in California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico -- because of an "unmanageable" amount of cases involving immigration and illegal drugs. It's not as if, however, that Rehnquist is simply trying to add more judges even if they're not necessary. For instance, it was encouraging to see the chief justice recommend that Congress forgo the filling of vacancies in the District of Columbia, Wyoming and West Virginia, because the workload just isn't sufficient enough to warrant an increase. Such a gesture often is unheard of elsewhere in government where "less" isn't part of the lexicon.

More judges definitely are needed in some districts, but Congress also would help the federal judiciary if it heeded Rehnquist's continued advice to avoid creating new federal crimes that are more properly the province of state courts. Federalizing some crimes may make people feel better, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it will result in better justice. Another area where the Senate could help the federal judiciary is filling the current vacancies. While the Senate did approve 65 new judges in 1998 -- after Rehnquist's unprecedented rebuke two years ago for the Senate's inaction in 1997 -- the upper chamber slipped in 1999, confirming just 33 new federal judges who were nominated by the president.

Although there are three branches of government, the judicial arm often gets overlooked. After all, unless you're suing someone or being prosecuted for allegedly committing a crime, it's most likely the closest you'd come to appearing before a local court is to have a traffic summons heard. But an effective judiciary is critical to the functioning of a democratic society. If defendants don't have adequate counsel, then the odds increase significantly that the accused who are innocent may be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Also important is the caseload carried by federal judges; if it's too much of a burden it will hinder timely justice, which is a hallmark of an effecient judiciary. Congress would do well to follow Rehnquist's recommendations that would create a more effective judiciary.