Summary:
The Virginia Magistrates Association (VMA) has undertaken
significant research endeavors over the past year for the purpose of informing
and advising our democratically elected representatives on the latest policy
issues concerning the Commonwealth’s magistrate system. This policy research guide will provide a
brief synopsis of our polling data on a proposed reform of the Virginia magistrate
system that can be found in Senate Bill 680, and a summary of a focus group
discussion that was held at the last meeting of the Association’s Executive
Board.
The Purpose of The Policy Research Guide
The purpose of this guide is to educate our democratically
elected representatives about some of the public policy issues presently facing
the magistrate system. Although the
opinions of individual members and the executive board will be presented, this research
guide is not intended to advocate for any particular policy, only to insure
that future policies developed by our representatives will be informed by
objective data and thoughtful analysis of these complex issues.
Section I: Polling Data Concerning
Senate Bill 680
In October of 2014, Senator Bill Carrico proposed new
legislation in the form of SB 680. This
proposed legislation would substantially affect the magistrate system by moving
managerial control of the magistrate system from the Office of the Executive
Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia to the Chief Circuit Judges of the
various judicial districts across the state.
Between October and December of 2014, the VMA conducted a
poll of its membership to determine how well this proposal was received by the
state’s current and former magistrates.
Approximately 52 current and former magistrates responded to the
poll. Seventeen members indicated
support for the bill. Eight members said
that that they supported the bill overall but had some concerns about certain
aspects of the bill. Ten members had no
opinion on the bill. Five members
indicated that while they did not support the bill overall, they agreed with
certain aspects of the bill. Twelve
members indicated that they did not support the bill.
Section II: Results of Focus Group
On October 20th, 2014, the Executive Board of the
Virginia Magistrate’s Association and their invited guests discussed the merits
of SB 680. The members of the Executive
Board present at the October meeting consisted of six active magistrates and
two retired magistrates that combined represented five of the eight magisterial
regions established since the 2008 magistrate system reforms. Three members of the board were appointed
after the 2008 magistrate system reforms were passed into law. At the end of the discussion five of the
board members expressed support for the bill, two members had concerns but no
definitive opinion on the bill, and one member expressed opposition to the
bill.
Arguments
Advanced In Support of SB 680
In the VMA’s focus group discussion, supporters of the bill
argued that restoring management of the magistrate’s to the Chief Circuit Court
judges would make individual magistrates’ offices more responsive to the needs
of local communities, including local court systems, as well as the other
government agencies that regularly interact with the magistrate system. The second major argument advanced by the
bill’s proponents was diversity. The
proponents of the bill contended that since 2008, the magistrate system has
become significantly less diverse than it was in the past, with many new
appointees holding very similar professional backgrounds. As a result, many magistrate offices no
longer are representative of the communities they serve, the proponents of the
bill contended. A secondary argument
advanced by the bill’s proponents was that the increased use of video
conferencing technology within some regions has made the entire system
extremely vulnerable to both natural and man made disasters as well as more
mundane weather events that could still cause power outages.
Arguments
Advanced In Opposition to SB 680
In the VMA’s focus group discussion, some participants raised
concerns that the proposed return of the four year term limit and
re-authorization of part time employment could erode job security for the
state’s magistrates and potentially politicize the appointment process in some
parts of the state. These participants
also argued that SB 680 could negatively impact the efforts of the Office of
the Executive Secretary to professionalize and streamline the magistrate system
so that consistent procedures were followed by all magistrates across the
state.
Section III: SB 794
Senate Bill 794, which was also introduced by Senator Bill
Carrico would require the prior authorization from an attorney for the
Commonwealth or a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the alleged
offense. Unfortunately, the VMA has not
been able to conduct any polling, focus group or any other data on this issue
at this time.
