Posted on: Tuesday, February 3, 2004

EDITORIAL
Court efficiency can be helped by new law

As Capitol Bureau reporter Lynda Arakawa reported in her series late last year, the Hawai'i Supreme Court is struggling mightily to clear up a substantial backlog of cases.

At the moment, the median age of cases before the Supreme Court at "termination" is more than a year.

The crush of work means delayed justice and a working pace that leaves little room for valuable oral arguments and extensive written opinions.

Several bills, including some from the Judiciary itself, have been introduced in an effort to speed up the process.

Ultimately, the pace of justice is determined by resources: Appoint more judges and hire more staff, and things will move more quickly. But as with everything else, there are limited resources.

An important step toward speeding the process has already been taken. Two new slots have been created for the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

That will bring the number of Intermediate Appeals judges to six, who will then meet in two panels of three each.

By itself, this will double the amount of work the Intermediate Court can handle.

But the Judiciary has proposed another sensible change. It asks that the system be revamped so that all appeals go first to the Intermediate Court. Today, they go directly to the Supreme Court, and then some are passed on to the Intermediate Court.

This creates an administrative logjam at the Supreme Court level, taking away time that could otherwise be spent on key duties such as deciding cases of first impression and basic constitutional issues.

Parties unhappy with a decision from the Intermediate Court could still appeal to the state Supreme Court.

This change, which should be approved by the Legislature, is not simply a matter of shifting the work from one court to another. It would increase efficiency and offer appealing parties a quicker resolution of their cases.

Another measure aimed at speeding the process has some appeal at first glance, but would likely become unworkable. This bill would mandate that civil cases before the Supreme Court be resolved within a year and for the Intermediate Court, six months.

The goal implied in that bill is reasonable enough; indeed, the court's own internal guidelines set similar goals.

But imposing a statutory time limit would go too far. It might be seen as an overbroad reach by one branch of government into the business of another. And it could lead to rushed decisions or unnecessary further appeals if the time limit were not met.