U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2008

110–256 

Calendar No. 556 

TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 550 

TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT 

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JANUARY 8, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Senior Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TYREE, Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 

Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

LISA M. POWELL, Chief Investigative Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AMANDA WOOD, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

DAVID W. COLE, Minority Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background .................................................................................................... 1 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 4 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 4 

V. Estimated Cost of Legislation ....................................................................... 5 

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 5 

VII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 5 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS

smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
1D.C. Code Section 1–204.31 (2003); 2002 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts, 

p. 11. 

Calendar No. 556 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–256 

TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR 

COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JANUARY 8, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 550] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 550) to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, having 

considered the same reports favorably thereon, without amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of S. 550 is to preserve existing judgeships within 

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia inadvertently impacted by the 107th Congress under the Family Court Act of 2001. 

II. BACKGROUND

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL COURT SYSTEM

The local District of Columbia Courts consist of the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals. The District of Columbia Courts constitute the 

Judicial Branch of the District of Columbia, and they are separate 

and distinct from the legislative and executive branches of the District of Columbia.1


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
2 

2Public Law No. 105–33, 111 Stat. 251. For a history of the District of Columbia court system, 

see Senate Report No. 107–108, Appendix 1. 3D.C. Code section 1–204.34 (2003) (One member is appointed by the President, two members 

are appointed by the Board of Governors of the unified District of Columbia Bar, two members 

are appointed by the Mayor, one member is appointed by the D.C. Council, one member is appointed by the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). 4D.C. Code section 1–204.33 (2003). 5D.C. Code section 1–204.31 (2003). 6Public Law No. 107–114. 7See Senate Report No. 107–108. 8These other requirements include: (1) there are no other judges already on the Court who 

are willing to volunteer for a transfer into the Family Court from another division, (2) the chief 

judge obtains permission from the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration with the Court, 

and (3) the chief judge reports to Congress on the need to exceed the cap. D.C. code § 11–

908A(a)(3). 

Under the terms of the National Capital Revitalization and Self 

Government Act of 1997, Congress oversees the District of Columbia court system, which is funded by the federal government.2

Judges on both the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and 

the Superior Court are selected through a process that includes the 

involvement of both local and federal entities. When a vacancy occurs on the Court, notice is sent to the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission, a District of Columbia agency composed of seven members.3

The Judicial Nominations Commission solicits applicants for the 

vacancy, conducts an investigation and review of each applicant, 

and selects three possible candidates to fill the vacancy. The names 

of those three candidates are sent to the President, who then selects one of the names to fill the vacancy on the Court. Once the 

nomination is made, it is sent to the Senate for confirmation.4

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia is the local trial 

court of general jurisdiction in the District of Columbia.5 It is organized into divisions—including civil, criminal, probate, and the 

Family Court—that provide specialized handling of cases in those 

areas. 

The last major reform of the District of Columbia Courts occurred in 2002. On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into 

law the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 (Act).6 The 

purpose of that Act was to restructure the then-family division of 

the Superior Court into a new Family Court. The Act was intended 

to promote the efficiency and consistency in the assignment of 

judges to the Family Court, improve the handling of cases involving families and neglected children, and help recruit and retain experienced judges to serve in the Family Court.7

Section 11–903 of the District of Columbia Code establishes an 

overall limit on the number of judges that may be seated on the 

Superior Court. The current limit is 58, in addition to a chief judge. 

Section 3(a) of the Family Court Act, among other things, allows 

the limit to be exceeded to appoint additional Family Court judges 

if the number of judges in the Family Court is less than 15 and 

if certain other conditions are met.8

Section 3(b) of the Act required the Court to complete a transition plan and submit it to Congress within 90 days of enactment. 

Section 3(c) of the Act required that the transition plan include a 

determination of the numbers of judges then-serving as Superior 

Court judges who meet the qualifications, and are willing and able, 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
3 

9See District of Columbia Family Court Transition Plan, April 5, 2002, p. 30. 

to serve as Family Court judges. In addition, section 3(c) required 

that, should the number of judges in the Family Court be less than 

15, then a corresponding number of vacancies would be created on 

the Superior Court. 

On April 5, 2002, the Chief Judge submitted to Congress the required transition plan. Under the plan, the Chief Judge determined 

that the number of judges qualified and willing to serve on the 

Family Court was 12 and, therefore, pursuant to the Family Court 

Act, three new vacancies were created on the Family Court, notwithstanding the overall limit to the number of judges on the Superior Court in section 11–903 of the District of Columbia Code.9 In 

other words, three ‘‘vacancies’’ on the Court were created, but the 

overall cap on the number of associate judges on the Superior 

Court remained at 58, as the Act failed to account for the new 

seats in the overall limit set forth in section 11–903. 

THE PROBLEM AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

On January 21, 2003, the President nominated Judith Nan 

Macaluso, Jerry Stewart Byrd, and Joseph Michael Ryan III to fill 

the three newly-created Family Court seats. Those nominations 

were referred to the then-Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 

as the committee of jurisdiction over the District of Columbia 

Courts. In addition to the three nominations to fill the three newlycreated Family Court seats, several judges were nominated in 2003 

to fill vacancies created by retiring judges. 

On June 27, 2003, the Senate confirmed Judge Macaluso to fill 

a Family Court vacancy and Fern Flanagan Saddler, who was nominated to fill a general Superior Court vacancy created by a retired 

judge. On October 24, 2003, the Senate confirmed Craig Iscoe and 

Brian Holeman as Superior Court judges. The two remaining Family Court nominees—Judge Byrd and Judge Ryan—were then confirmed, under the provisions of the Family Court Act which allowed 

the limit on the total number of Superior Court judges to be exceeded under certain conditions to allow for the appointment of 

Family Court judges. With these two confirmations, the Family 

Court had its full complement of 15 dedicated judges. The Superior 

Court, however, now had 60 associate judges. 

Moreover, on September 25, 2003, while the four previous nominations were still pending in Committee, the Committee received 

the additional nomination of Gregory E. Jackson to fill the seat of 

the retired judge Mildred M. Edwards. The Senate, however, could 

not confirm him for the position at that time, however, because he 

would have been the 61st associate judge on the Superior Court, 

and confirming him would have meant exceeding the statutory 

maximum number of judges set out in D.C. Code § 11–903. Instead, 

Mr. Jackson had to wait for additional retirements to bring the 

total number of Superior Court judges below the statutory maximum; as a result it was over a year before his nomination was reported out of Committee and confirmed by the Senate. 

Since then, that unfortunate pattern has continued, with individuals nominated for ‘‘vacancies’’ on the Superior Court upon the retirement of a judge, but then forced to wait until the overall number of judges is reduced through subsequent retirements before the 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
4 

10 2002 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts, p. 65. Cases available for disposition 

include cases pending at the beginning of the year, plus new cases filed and cases reactivated 

during the course of the year. 11 2006 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts, p. 29. 12 In 2006, the Family Court division had an overall clearance rate of 90 percent. The civil 

division had a clearance rate for civil actions of 128%—i.e., it disposed of more civil action cases 

than were added—although its overall clearance rate for all cases (including landlord-tenant and 

small claims) was not available. 2006 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts, p. 29. 13 2006 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts, p. 29. 

candidate can be confirmed. Often, this has resulted in significant 

delays in consideration of nominees—and inconvenience or hardship for nominees whose status and employment remain in limbo. 

Should section 11–903 not be amended, moreover, the result may 

be a permanent decrease in the number of judges serving in the 

non-Family Court divisions of the Superior Court, including civil 

and criminal, as judges retire but cannot be replaced immediately. 

Such a decrease in the number of judges would worsen existing 

case backlogs. In 2002, when the Family Court Act of 2001 went 

into effect, the civil division of the Superior Court had nearly 

98,000 cases available for disposition, and the Family Court had 

over 38,000 cases available for disposition.10 Since that time, the 

caseload of the civil division has increased somewhat, while the 

Family court has reduced its caseload somewhat. In 2006, the civil 

division had 116,306 cases available for disposition, while the Family Court had 27,420 available for disposition.11 Although the civil 

division and the Family Court have high clearance rates,12 because 

of the large scale of the court’s operations, they both carry large 

case backlogs. At the end of 2006, the civil division had 38,636 

cases pending, while the Family Court had 14,482 cases pending.13

Insufficient judicial staffing and the resulting delays in case resolution have detrimental effects on the parties to the cases, delaying 

access to justice while increasing the cost and prolonging the uncertainty involved in litigation. S. 550 would address these issues 

by increasing the number of associate judges from 58 to 61. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The legislation was introduced as S. 550 by Senators Akaka, 

Voinovich, and Lieberman on February 12, 2007, and was referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

on the same date. Previous versions of the bill, S. 1561, introduced 

by Senators Collins, Voinovich, and Durbin in the 108th Congress, 

and S. 2068, introduced by Senators Collins, Voinovich, and Akaka 

in the 109th Congress, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

No action was taken in the House of Representatives. On February 

15, 2007, the Committee considered S. 550 and ordered the bill reported favorably by voice vote without amendment. Members 

present were Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, Pryor, Landrieu, Tester, 

Collins, Voinovich, and Coburn. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 amends section 11–903 of the District of Columbia 

Code to increase the limit on the number of judges on the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia from 58 to 61. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
5 

V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

FEBRUARY 22, 2007. 

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 550, a bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

S. 550—A bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court 

of the District of Columbia 

S. 550 would amend the District of Columbia Code to increase 

the number of associate judges on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 58 to 61. Under current law, the Superior 

Court is subject to a cap of 58 judgeships. Based on information 

from the Superior Court, CBO estimates that increasing the cap on 

judgeships to 61 would cost about $1 million a year for salaries and 

benefits of additional judges and support staff, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 550 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. 

This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that there are no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on state, local, or tribal 

governments. The legislation contains no other regulatory impact. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic and 

existing law, in which no change is proposed, is shown in roman): 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
6 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE 

TITLE 11, ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION 

OF THE COURTS 

CHAPTER 9. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

11–903. COMPOSITION 

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall consist of 

a chief judge and øfifty-eight¿ 61 associate judges. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS