Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2004 | 10:56 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The House approved an amendment Tuesday dividing the country's largest federal circuit into three new circuits, including a new one for Nevada.
The change may not become law this year, but supporters say the vote is a good sign for passage next year. The amendment is identical to a bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., but the Senate has not voted on it yet and time is running out on the legislative calendar.
The amendment, which passed 205-194, would split up the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- the nation's biggest. The court has long been subject of talk of a split because of its size, and conservatives have criticized the court for what they see as a liberal slant.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, would split up the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and put Nevada in a new 12th Circuit along with Arizona, Idaho and Montana.
A new 13th Circuit would contain Oregon, Washington and Alaska, with California, Hawaii, Guam and Northern Marianas Island remaining in the 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit Court is simply overworked, said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. He noted that the court has the most appeals filed and pending. The 9th Circuit serves 25 million more people than the next largest circuit, Gibbons said.
Gibbons and Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., voted for the amendment.
"By streaming courts into three circuits, our appellate court system will become more efficient in administrating justice," Porter said. "The 9th's immense size and caseload prohibits its judges from being more familiar with circuit case opinion."
Gibbons said the goal of the legislation is to create efficiency, not more conservative courts. Gibbons said he was optimistic that Senate would approve the legislation next year.
"There is a lot of support in the West for doing this," Gibbons said. "It is not politically motivated."
But Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., who voted against the amendment, said the vote was designed just to "score political points."
"We have three equal branches of government in America, and just because members of Congress may not agree with the court's ruling, that does not give them the right to try and dismantle our judicial system or to override our system of checks and balances," Berkley, who voted against the amendment, said.
She said splitting the jurisdiction would create more budget problems, with startup costs estimated at $131 million and annual costs at $20 million.
"The costs associated with the proposed split are enormous and couldn't come at a worse time," Berkley said.
The 9th Circuit functions differently than the other circuits because it is so big, said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch. Sometimes the court acts more as a legislature than as a court, Fitton said.
He said there was no question the court has a liberal slant.
"A split court might better reflect the values outside California," Fitton said.
But the more liberal group Alliance For Justice opposes a split. The longstanding proposal to split the court is rooted in timber companies that once objected to liberal environmental rulings, said the group's president, Nan Aron. She said a vast array of judges, bar association leaders and government officials oppose the split and will not allow Congress to make it happen.
"It's an end-run around the courts simply because business interests don't want environmental and consumer-interest lawyers to succeed," Aron said.
The House approval added the amendment to a bill creating new federal judge positions, which also passed the House.
archive
