Provides for review of bail data reports by the state commission on judicial conduct

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jamaal Bailey says this is needed

This bill clarifies the power of the Commission on Judicial Conduct ("Commission") to police bias in the court system. The State Constitution charges the Commission with investigating, and where appropriate, sanctioning any judge "with respect to the conduct, qualifications, fitness to perform or performance of official duties(.)" To properly perform judicial duties, a judge must adjudicate matters impartially. Under the rules of judicial conduct, a judge must "perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any person" because of membership in a protected class such as race or national origin. Since 2019, state law has required the Office of Court Administration and the Division of Criminal Justice Services to collect data and report annually on how the judges of the state court system decide matters of pretrial release and detention. The OCA-DCJS data, which is disaggre- gated by individual judge, is a powerful tool for the legislature and the public to monitor and evaluate the state's criminal justice system. If the data points to bias in the judiciary, the Constitution empowers - and requires - the Commission to act. This bill clarifies that the Commission may, in its discretion, use OCA-DCJS data to fulfil its constitutional mandate of ensuring the prop- er functioning of the judiciary. Under the bill, the Commission may study OCA-DCJS pretrial release data for evidence of bias. If the data suggests bias on the part of any judge, the Commission may use its preexisting powers to initiate investigations and, where appropriate after a formal hearing process, recommend discipline. The bill further authorizes the Commission to comment more generally on the OCA-DCJS bail data in its annual report. Current law does not prohibit the Commission from using OCA-DCJS data to guard against misconduct. This bill, however, is needed to clarify the Commission's authority in this area. In doing so, the bill identifies and codifies a relatively new but promising tool that the Commission may use to carry out its constitutional mandate of ensuring the impartiality of the courts.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.