February 21st, 2014 by Todd Ito
As of January 1, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has become the official publisher of the state’s appellate court decisions and will publish those decisions online through The Oklahoma State Courts Network. West Publishing had been the official publisher of Oklahoma appellate court decisions for 60 years, but is now considered an unofficial publisher. The Oklahoma Supreme Court decision, 2013 OK 109, states: “Effective January 1, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court will become the official publisher of the decisions of this Court and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. The official version of published decisions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals will be published on the Oklahoma State Courts Network, www.oscn.net. Such decisions will become ‘official’ upon the placement of the respective court’s official seal of authentication at the beginning of the published decision.”
This change comes after similar decisions by a number of other state courts, including the Supreme Court of Illinois, which adopted a vendor neutral citation system in 2011.
August 20th, 2013 by wbaumann
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) was established as an entity of the White House in 2004 by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458). In 2007 it was reconstituted as an independent agency by Congress.
But until the August 2012 Senate confirmation of four members of the Board and the confirmation of David Medine as chairman on May 7, 2013, it had existed in name only. Mr. Medine is the board’s only full-time member with authority to hire a staff. His confirmation was crucial to allowing the agency to actually begin its work.
The two basic missions of this long-dormant agency are :
“To review and analyze actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from terrorism, ensuring the need for such actions is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties. To ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered in the development and implementation of laws, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism.”
The PCLOB appears to have substantial authorities to carry out that mission. It has access relevant materials, including classified information, can take public testimony from any executive branch officer or employee and through the Attorney General can subpoena other department to produce relevant information.
The final full authorization of this agency, comes at a time when the concerns expressed in its mission statement, are filling the media and the halls of Congress.
“In a letter sent to PCLOB yesterday [ June 12, 2013 ] Senators Tom Udall (D-NM), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and 11 colleagues requested the board examine whether the NSA data and phone record collection programs are legal as authorized by Congress and whether they adequately protect the privacy of Americans. The senators further asked that the investigation’s results be produced in an unclassified report for public release.”
While the government may have valid reasons for conducting operations and surveillance to safeguard national security. Doing this without the awareness and knowledge of citizens directly affected by these policies can only lead to abuse, over time.
In a context much like the Church Committee in the 1970s, both Congress and the PCLOB should commence a comprehensive investigation of domestic intelligence activities. The investigation should seek to uncover illegal or inappropriate surveillance and prevent it from recurring.
June 19th, 2013 by wbaumann
The process had begun with a pilot project in 2009, followed by an expansion in January 2013. On April 1, 2013, citizens were given access to electronically file cases for all Law Division case types, except condemnations. The Clerk’s Office plans to have eFiling implemented for all civil case types by August 2013. The new service is the result of the collaboration among Chief Judge Evans, Chief Justice Kilbride and Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Electronic Filing (eFiling) provides an opportunity for attorneys and/or pro se litigants to efficiently upload and file court documents with the Circuit Court of Cook County through the Internet using a standard web browser. Attorneys, as well as the individual registered to file the documents, can access previously filed documents through the website. The process increases efficiency for attorneys, and self-represented litigants. E-Filing also streamlines the process of the Clerk’s Office .
End User Guide for the eFile Pilot Project
Video Webinars for Electronic Filing For Attorneys , For Self-Represented Litigants (Pro Se)
eFile Registration web page
February 28th, 2013 by wbaumann
The idea for the Sunlight Foundation’s, Open States Project, began in 2009. From an initial core of volunteers from several states, the project has gathered volunteer contributors from all 50 staes plus Wash. D.C. & Puerto Rico. With additional contributions of computer expertise and a grant to build the public web site, the Open States web site is now operational.
The interface allows citizens to locate their state representatives by entering an address or clicking on online maps or entering a legislator’s name. Short biographical information, plus some news stories are provided. Links to the bills that the legislator has sponsored and recent votes on other legislation are presented. Summary charts of campaign contributions are provided with links to more detailed data from followthemoney.org and opensecrets.org .
Bills for the current and several past legislative sessions can be searched by chamber, sponsor, status, type of bill or resolution, and subject ( free text not an index). The full text of the bill can be called up. Roll call votes are also accessible. There is a tracking tool called Scout from the Sunlight Foundation that alerts you when Congress or your state capitol talks about or takes action on issues you care about.
Open States tutorial
February 5th, 2013 by wbaumann
In a recent posting on the blog of the Canadian legal news web site, Slaw, Judith Gaskell, former Director of the Law Library of Congress and former Director of the DePaul Rinn Law library, wrote about the present status of UELMA ( Unifrom Elecronic Materials Act ) .
UELMA was drafted in response to a request from the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), following the AALL’s 2007 National Summit on Authentication of Digital Legal Information. She reports on it’s introduction into the legislatures of several states and it’s adpotion by two of these. She also briefly descibes the basic requirements under the act.
Working through the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State laws ( Uniform Law Commission ), advocates develop uniform state laws that can eventually be introduced to states for their adoption. Much work and discussion goes into the creation of such an act. And much publicizing and lobbying is required to gain adoption. UELMA is only five pages long. But the fact that the Commission has dedignated UELMA as a “uniform law”, attests to the importance it attaches to the issue.
“The Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act establishes an outcomes-based, technology-neutral framework for providing online legal material with the same level of trustworthiness traditionally provided by publication in a law book.” The Act itself covers three critical areas: authentication, preservation and public access.”
Sections 5 and 6 of the Act cover authentication. Section 5 requires the state to insure that the record received by the user is unaltered from the official published record . Section 6 ceates a presumption that the authenticated record is accurate and can only be challenged by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 8 deals with public access.
The need for legislation like UELMA became clear as more and more states began publishing legal information electronically and also beginning to discontinue their print publications containing this information. For the purposes of public information and for use in litigation, questions arose regarding the staus of such electronically-published materials. Could they be relied upon as accurate and official versions of the former hard copy sources ?
The application of UELMA in several states, that have introduced it, covers several main sources of legal information : the state constitution, statutes & codes, session laws, agency rules. But intermediate documents in the law-making process, such as bills, amendments and proposed rules are not included. Judicial opinions may also not be included , usually in defrence to the judicial branch, on separation of powers considerations.
Section 8 of the uniform act provides for permanent public access. However, given some of the language of this section there is room for discretion in implementation by the states. The standards state that legal materials should be ” reasonably available” and would allow for the removal of such material under “reasonable conditions”.
Under these standards the format and interface used to distribute the information online, could actually impede public access. Materials that are suppose to be retained permanently, could still be removed. Even fees for public access could be implimented under this wording.
There is another aspect of “public access” that was not meant to be part of UELMA but that is worth mentioning since it may become of increasing importance in the future. The federal government has been providing freely accessible data sets from many of its agencies for use by non-profit and for-profit entities, to use to create new applications and information products for the public and the marketplace.
UELMA was not written to address this secondary form of “public access” in the context of the states. Advocates of greater public access would hope that the state agency or official named as the “official publisher”, according to the law, would be aware of and amenable to providing access to this type of data for reuse, as well as the traditional versions of the text of laws and regulations.
December 18th, 2012 by wbaumann
Mayor Emanuel has moved quickly to have city agencies assemble and distribute data from their operations. This data will also be used internally for data analysis to improve city decision-making and management. To carry out these missions, he has appointed a Chief Data Officer who will be working with an Open Data Advisory Group made up of data coordinators from each City agency.
The agencies will be expected to publish public data sets on a regular basis. In addition to providing information regarding the functioning of the city executive, it is expected that the released data will serve as a platform for the creation of innovative tools that will improve the lives of all residents.
To improve City operations, the Mayor has launched a citywide data collection project that is being funded by a grant from the Chicago-based , MacArthur Foundation. It will consolidate the data into a singular data platform for analysis that can inform decision-making and improve operations.
In a December 14, press release the Mayor announced the release of an unprecedented amount of data on the City’s procurement process. This will include “…posting all winning and losing bids and proposals submitted by vendors online anytime a contract is awarded, including all line items of competitive bids. DPS will start posting these documents online during the first quarter of 2013…”
Two other initiatives will go beyond just the City of Chicago. “MetroChicagoData.org” will combine public data from Chicago and multiple local governments and the State into a single portal. Moving beyond the local geography, the City is partnering with New York, San Francisco , Seattle and the federal government on an initiative called “Cities.Data.Gov”. This portal is designed to help city officials and developers, working together, to improve the information available to their residents.
The efforts on all these extensive data collection and distribution initiatives, does lend much credibility to the Emanuel administration’s commitment to fostering real transparency and accountability.
October 12th, 2012 by wbaumann
Until recently, Illinois was one of only 14 states without regular photography in any of its judicial circuits at the trial court level. Although it allowed cameras in its Supreme Court and appellate courts since 1983. Nearby states Iowa, since 1979 and Wisconsin, since 1978, have had policies for cameras in the trial courtrooms.
The state’s Supreme Court earlier this year authorized cameras and other electronic recording devices for courtrooms on an experimental, circuit-by-circuit basis. The state’s Supreme Court has provided numerous guidelines ( “How it will work” ) that the media must follow and that retain control of the process by judges. Witnesses are also provided with discretion not to be the subjects of courtroom cameras.
The Daily Herald reports that “Since January, five circuits serving 13 counties have applied for and received the permission for expanded media coverage. DuPage County likely is next, court officials said, followed by Cook County sometime before the end of the year.”
In Cook County, Chief Judge Timothy Evans has been particularly forceful in getting cameras introduced into civil and criminal courtrooms in Cook County. In a Chicago Tribune story, Justice Evans hints that he might even re-assign judges who resist this the process. “…[He] referred to his power to reassign judges when he discussed how he doesn’t want to see the pilot project thwarted “because of the recalcitrance of one judge.”
While there are proponents for the introduction of cameras among the public, the media, the legislature and some judges, there are important issues that need careful consideration if the process is to be implemented fairly and without too many unintended consequences.
In a forthcoming law review article, “The Conundrum of Cameras in the Courtroom”, by Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, while directed at the issue of cameras in the federal courts, provides some cautions that would apply to state courts as well.
She says that “Judges need to recognize that neither television nor Internet images are neutral or objective.” “…The traditional view of cameras is as the all-seeing eye: They are turned on and they simply record what is before them. What is missing from this account is that the placement of the camera, the focus on a particular subject to the exclusion of all others, the editing of the images, and the voice-over that accompanies the images, give shape to the story. Because images are powerful and the story is woven seamlessly, it is easy to lose sight of what has been omitted and what choices have been made in the process.”
Also, since pre-trial hearings may also be broadcast and recorded, the effect of sometimes prejudicial pre-trial publicity, will need to be considered, to preserve the fairness of a trial.
Professor Marder’s article speaks to the broader responsibility required from those who produce the media and even those who consume their product, to be critical users of the information these images from the courtroom, purport to convey. She speaks of a developing “social etiquette” that will hopefully develop to address these broader factors that will affect the impact of courtroom cameras on all participants.
Speaking of federal trial courts she says that, “Until there is a camera etiquette, courts should continue to proceed slowly because everyone is a potential cameraman and a potential subject on the Web. Courts are no longer dealing with just three major television networks that would abide by certain rules….” State courts are operating in the same changing technological and social environment.
While many proponents share Judge Evans’s enthusiasm for making the workings of the courts more visible, accessible and accountable, a rushed introduction without sufficient attention to the interests of all potentially affected parties, may actually hinder the wide acceptance of cameras in Illinois trial courtrooms. As Professor Marder argues, social standards and expectations may need to evolve further, before the basis for long term viability and acceptance are in place.
August 8th, 2012 by Jamie Sommer
From the AALL Government Relations Office:
Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its Legislative Branch appropriations bill (H.R. 5882). The Senate appropriations mark set Library of Congress funding was set at $592.2 million, an increase of 0.8% above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Government Printing Office (GPO) was appropriated $126.2 million, equal to the 2012 enacted level and GPO’s request. See our update Library of Congress and GPO Appropriations Charts for details of the Senate committee mark.
IL Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk are both members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please use the Legislative Action Center to thank and urge them support full funding for the Library of Congress and GPO if the bill goes to conference. If you live outside of IL and your Senators are not appropriators, urge them to vote in favor of the bill on the Senate floor. If your Representative is on the House Appropriations Committee, please ask him/her to support full funding in the conference. The Legislative Action Center will automatically tailor your message to the appropriate audience group. We just need you to customize and send it!
June 29th, 2012 by Jamie Sommer
From the AALL Government Relations Office:
A recent query from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel in the U.S. House of Representatives about the importance of the printed General Index of the U.S. Code has made clear that the threat of elimination of print legal materials and reference publications continues to loom. As advocates for permanent public access to primary legal materials, AALL members know the value print resources provide. It is incumbent upon us to build evidence in support of the continued need for print and other tangible formats.
To that end, the Government Relations Office has created a print resource usage log that will aid in collecting more information about print use. We ask that you log each time you use, or help someone to use, a federal legal resource in print. Examples include the print Code of Federal Regulations, Congressional Record, and U.S. Code. The usage log is short and simple. Please provide answers to as many of the questions as you can and ask your colleagues to do the same. Your answers will only be recorded and viewed by the AALL Government Relations Office staff, though we will make public an overview of the responses.
May 14th, 2012 by wbaumann
With the first spending bill of the year, The House Appropriations Committee’s bill for Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations, slashes government’s data collection arm by 25 percent. The cuts in question target the Commerce Department’s Census Bureau . The U.S. House of Representatives voted (232 – 190) to eliminate all funding for the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), which replaced the traditional census long form starting with the 2010 Census. These cuts follow the Obama’s own proposed cuts to the bureau’s budget.
A U.S. Department Of Commerce, Office of Inspector General’s report, in June 2011, raised questions re. the cost of conducting the ten-year census mandated by the constitution. However, the Census Bureau has been striving to cut administrative costs, re-engineer their survey processes to bring down its costs while maintaining the quality & accuracy of the statistics gathered.
But for most of the congresspersons who want to gut the Census Bureau, it’s not only about costs. “Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) famously declared she would not fill out her 2010 Census form, even though doing so is required by the Constitution and law. Bachmann even raised the specter of the World War II-eraJapanese interment camps to argue against the Census.”
And while the Economic Census is the foundation for the country’s most important measures of our economy, House Appropriations Chairman Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) claims that “This legislation roots out extraneous, duplicative and unnecessary programs while prioritizing some of the most critical aspects of government,” One wonders how having accurate & authoritative economic data, esp. in these times, can be seen as unnecessary !
The damage that these apparently ideologically motivated cuts will cause is significant. “The Census Bureau would have to terminate major statistical programs, cease critical data collection and vital benchmark reports on the nation’s economy, population and housing, as well as lay off off as many as 700 employees.”
As Census Director Robert M. Groves states, The ACS is our country’s only source of small area estimates on social and demographic characteristics.” Manufacturers, retail businesses , home builders, local communities all rely on its updated data. “There is no substitute from the private sector for ACS small area estimates.”
The cuts would prevent the continuing work on finalizing the results from the 2010 census. Also, not being able to test new methods will probably mean that the 2020 census will not be at a lower cost per household than that of the 2010 Census. If saving taxpayer money is a real motive, the cuts don’t really further that objective.
Business interests do not support the proposed drastic cuts. “The Chamber of Commerce, for example, strongly advocates funding them, since its members rely so much on the information they provide on basic things such as household spending, per capita income, and population estimates. ” Andrew Reamer, a research professor at the George Washington University Institute of Public Policy states that “The loss of the American Community Survey will cause chaos and inefficiency in the operations of business and government in the U.S.,”
As Phillip Swagel, an economist and nonresident scholar at American Enterprise Institute states, “Those agencies are essential,” “The data they provide really tell us what’s going on in the economy. This shouldn’t be a political issue.” Unfortunately, it appears, that is exactly what it has become.