Opinion ID: 874336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: constitutional duty

Text: A number of times during these proceedings, commencing with his interview by Hamlin, Petitioner has contended that living in Idaho County interferes with his ability to carry out his constitutional duty. He does not identify the constitutional provision that would trump the statutory requirement that he reside in Idaho County. The argument displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the pertinent constitutional provisions. While Idaho's judicial system is a separate branch of government, it depends upon the Legislature for funding. Article V, section 11 of the Idaho Constitution divides the state into five judicial districts but provides that the legislature may reduce or increase the number of districts, district judges and district attorneys. The Legislature may use its power over the purse strings to fund a particular district judge position in a particular locale. It has chosen to do so by virtue of Idaho Code sections 1-803 and 1-809. For better or for worse, this is a political decision that is within the legislative prerogative. Those who are familiar with the political situation in the less populated counties of Idaho are aware of the jockeying that goes on when the Supreme Court notifies the Legislature of the need for an additional judge in a particular district and suggests where the same might be chambered. The Court certainly has the ability to suggest the proposed location where the district judge is most needed, but the Legislature takes the matter from there and the counties often enter into fierce competition to have the judge housed in their county, rather than the adjoining county. County residents have a strong interest in having a judge live and work in their community and the exact location where that will occur is a political decision conferred by the Constitution upon the Legislature. While the Legislature's decision as to which district judge position will be funded and where it will be located may not always coincide with what is ideal from an administrative standpoint, it is not for the courts to second guess or circumvent such decisions. Once a district judge is appointed to live in a particular county, the Idaho Supreme Court exercises its constitutional responsibility to administer and supervise the work of the district judge. Art. V, § 2 of the Idaho Constitution provides that, The courts shall constitute a unified and integrated judicial system for administration and supervision by the Supreme Court. As we stated in Eismann v. Miller , this provision places the obligation and power to administer and supervise the judicial system of this state squarely upon the shoulders of this court. 101 Idaho at 697, 619 P.2d at 1150. The Idaho Supreme Court, being vested with power to administer and supervise the entire court system, is responsible for delineating the duties of district judges and specifying how those duties will be performed. Nothing in our constitutional system allows an individual district judge to determine, on his own, what his duties are and how they will be performed. Our constitutional system does not allow any district judge of this State to ignore specific statutory provisions by claiming them to be trumped by some undefined constitutional duty. No judge is above the law.