U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

REPORT

2006

109–316 

Calendar No. 559 

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. 2068 

TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT 

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JULY 31, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Professional Staff Member 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Minority Staff Director 

BETH GROSSMAN, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 5 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 5 

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

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 6 

VII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 6 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
1See D.C. Code Section 1–204.31 (2003); 2002 Annual Report of the District of Columbia 

Courts, p. 11. 2For a history of the District of Columbia court system, see Senate Report No. 107–108, Appendix. 

Calendar No. 559 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 109–316 

TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR 

COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JULY 31, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Ms. COLLINS, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2068] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 2068) 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. 2068 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 The District of Columbia court system is overseen by Congress and funded by the federal government.2


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

3See D.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 Major, 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 1–203.33 (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. 

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 consists 

of six divisions including civil, criminal, probate, social services, 

and the Family Court. 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 

2001.6 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 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 an analysis of the number of judges then 

sitting on the Family Court. 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 

Court. 

On April 5, 2002, the chief judge submitted to Congress the required transition plan. The plan 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

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

limit to the number of judges on the Superior Court in section 11– 903 of the District of Columbia Code.9 As a result, the nomination 

process was triggered and 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. 

THE PROBLEM AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Prior to the nominations of the three Family Court nominees, the 

Committee had also received the nomination of Fern Flanagan Saddler. As with most DC Court nominations, she was nominated to 

fill a vacancy created by a retired judge, Judge Patricia Wynn, and 

was not designated for a particular division. Later in the year, the 

Committee received the nominations of Brian F. Holeman and 

Craig S. Iscoe to be Superior Court judges to fill vacancies created 

by retired judges Mary Ellen Abrecht and Frederick D. Dorsey, respectively. On June 26, 2003, the Committee favorably reported the 

nominations of Fern Saddler and Judith Nan Macaluso to the full 

Senate and on June 27, 2003, both were confirmed. 

Subsequently, the Committee learned that with the confirmation 

of Judges Macaluso and Saddler, the Court only had two open seats 

due to the overall limit on the number of judges; however, there 

were four nominations still pending in the Committee. If all four 

of those nominations had involved judges not specifically designated to serve on the Family Court, the limit on the number of 

judges in section 11–903 would have permitted only two of the four 

nominated individuals to serve on the Court, even if the Senate 

confirmed all four. While the Family Court Act resulted in creating 

three new seats on the Court, that Act failed to account for the new 

seats in the overall limit outlined in section 11–903. In addition, 

while the four nominations were still pending in Committee, on 

September 25, 2003, the Committee received the additional nomination of Gregory E. Jackson to fill the seat of retired judge Mildred M. Edwards. 

In response to this problem, Chairman Collins, along with Senators Voinovich and Durbin, Chairman and Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, introduced S. 1561 in 

the 108th Congress to amend section 11–903 (an identical bill was 

subsequently reintroduced as S. 2068 in the 109th Congress). In 

addition, the Committee determined that it would move forward 

with the nominations of Joseph Michael Ryan III, Jerry Stewart 

Byrd, Brian F. Holeman, and Craig S. Iscoe. The Family Court Act 

provides an exception to section 11–903 to allow Family Court 

judges to be seated notwithstanding the limit. Therefore, the Committee determined that if Brian F. Holeman and Craig S. Iscoe 

were confirmed prior to the confirmations of Joseph Michael Ryan 

III and Jerry Stewart Byrd, the Family Court nominees, all four 

could be seated as judges, notwithstanding the fact that there were 

only two vacancies on the Court. Once the Holeman and Iscoe 

nominations were confirmed, there were no more seats remaining 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

10 2002 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts. 11 2005 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts. 12 2005 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts. 13 Examining the Work of State Courts, 2004, Criminal Statistics. 

on the Court; however, because of the exception in the Family 

Court Act, the Court could exceed the section 11–903 limit to seat 

the two Family Court judges, Ryan and Byrd. 

On October 22, 2003, the Committee favorably reported the four 

nominations to the full Senate and on October 24, 2003, the Senate 

confirmed first the nominations of Brian F. Holeman and Craig S. 

Iscoe and then, on the same day, confirmed the nominations of Joseph Michael Ryan III and Jerry Stewart Byrd. However, Gregory 

E. Jackson was not able to be confirmed until November 21, 2004 

when an additional vacancy was created due to the retirement of 

an additional Superior Court judge. 

On February 14, 2005, the Committee received the nomination of 

Jennifer M. Anderson to be Associate Judge, D.C. Superior Court. 

On November 10, 2005, the Committee received the nomination of 

Carol A. Dalton to serve on the Superior Court; and on January 26, 

2006, the Committee received the nomination of Pamela S. Gray, 

also to serve on the Superior Court. The Committee has been unable to process the nominations of Dalton and Gray since no vacancies exist on the Superior Court. On July 11, 2006, the Committee 

was able to schedule the confirmation for Anderson due to the nomination of Justice Anna Blackburne-Rigsby to be Associate Judge of 

the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 

In addition, should section 11–903 not be amended, 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 other judges decide to retire. 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, while the Family Court boasted only 38,000.10 Of this 98,000 

from the civil division, only 88,123 were actually disposed, and just 

under 14,000 were disposed from Family Court.11 Three years 

later, the situation is quite similar, even in the wake of 3 additional judges being assigned to the Family Court division. In 2005, 

the civil division and Family Court division saw clearance rates of 

97% and 87% respectively.12 And while 97% and 87% may seem 

impressive, given the large scale for which the courts operate on, 

a 97% clearance rate for the civil division has resulted in a case 

backlog of over 2,400. The subsequent pending case load of 87% for 

the Family Court has resulted in a backlog of over 1,600 cases. 

Overall, percentage dispositions for the Superior Court are falling, 

and the result is a continual increase in pending cases for each 

subsequent year. In 2003, the District of Columbia had over 5,900 

felony case filings for 100,000 population, the third highest in the 

nation.13

The detrimental effect on various Superior Court divisions is evident by the increase in pending case loads as well as the decrease 

in total cases disposed. S. 2068 would address both of these issues 

by increasing the number of associate judges from 58 to 61, in an 

effort to dispose more cases and lessen pending case loads for Superior Court divisions. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1561 was introduced on August 1, 2003 by Senators Collins, 

Voinovich, and Durbin. The legislation was referred to the then 

Committee on Governmental Affairs, and subsequently referred to 

the Subcommittee on Government Management, the Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia. The bill was favorably polled by the 

subcommittee on October 15, 2003, and on October 22, 2003, the 

Committee ordered the bill favorably reported by voice vote. On 

November 20, 2003, the bill passed the Senate unanimous consent, 

and was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform 

on November 21, 2003. No further action was taken on the legislation during the 108th Congress. 

The legislation was reintroduced by Senators Collins, Voinovich, 

and Akaka on November 18, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the 

same date. On January 27, 2006, S. 2068 was referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia, which favorably polled the 

legislation on April 21, 2006. Senator Lieberman cosponsored the 

bill on June 13, 2006. On June 15, 2006, the Committee considered 

S. 2068 and ordered the bill reported favorably by voice vote without amendment. Members present were Senators Collins, 

Voinovich, Coleman, Coburn, Chafee, Bennett, Lieberman, Carper, 

Dayton, and Pryor. 

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. 

V. ESTIMATED COST OF THE LEGISLATION

JUNE 16, 2006. 

Hon. SUSAN M. COLLINS, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2068, 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, 

DONALD B. MARRON, Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 2068—A bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia 

S. 2068 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

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. 2068 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandate 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): 

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS