SB1574

The council must develop the program by rule to identify, support and recognize judges who excel in serving their communities and representing the judiciary. Recognition must consider governance, access, fairness, case-flow management and court operations, plus compliance with statutory or procedural requirements for judicial reporting, court security, fee collection, indigent defense, and prevention of guardianship fraud and abuse. These are required considerations, not a numeric scoring system supplied by the act. Final law.

Eligible applicants are justices or judges of appellate, district, statutory county, statutory probate, county, justice and municipal courts. They may apply using the council’s prescribed form and manner. The act does not automatically recognize every judge, set an application deadline, or create an entitlement to a cash award. Final law.

The introduced bill limited eligibility to appellate, district, statutory county and county courts and proposed one annual merit payment equal to five percent of base salary in each fiscal year a judge was recognized. The Senate substitute removed that payment and added justice and municipal courts; the Senate-passed text retained those changes. The House substitute added statutory probate courts, and that addition survived in the final law. The amendment index lists no separate amendments: the history’s House-amendment/concurrence entries reflect the House’s changed bill text, not an indexed floor amendment to attribute to an offerer. Introduced; Senate substitute; Senate-passed; House substitute; Final law; Version index; Amendment index.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Participating judges may gain recognition and support for court-management practices. Court users could benefit if the program encourages better access, fairness and administration, but the statute does not establish actual improvements, certify a named judge or change the outcome of a case. The council and applicants must carry out the rulemaking, application and review work. Final law.

The April 15 fiscal note for the original five-percent payment proposal said its cost could not be determined because the number and base salaries of recognized judges were unknown. That uncertainty concerned a proposal removed before enactment. The April 22 substitute, May 6 Senate-passed and May 15 House-substitute notes instead anticipate no significant state or local fiscal impact and assume state costs can be absorbed with existing resources. They do not give a dollar forecast or multiyear table. The final act makes no appropriation or salary award. Original fiscal note; Senate-substitute note; Senate-passed note; House-substitute note; Final law.