Senate Panel Votes To Reorganize California Court Legislation, Which Would Affect Nw, Certain To Face Opposition In Congress

A Senate Appropriations Committee panel voted Friday to divide the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals under a reorganization that could leave California with its own federal appellate court.

Other Western states, from Arizona to Alaska, would be lumped under a newly created 12th Circuit with courtrooms in Seattle and Phoenix.

The legislation, part of a spending bill covering the federal judiciary, is certain to face opposition on the Senate floor and in the House, which in June passed a bill calling for a study of the court’s restructuring.

California’s two Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, promptly announced that they would fight the split when the spending bill reaches the Senate floor, possibly before Congress’ August break.

Advocates of the reorganization have largely come from the smaller Western and Pacific Northwest states, some of whom complain that the court’s decisions are too liberal.

But Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican who has personally joined in opposition to a 9th Circuit decision expanding American Indian self-government powers in his state, insisted that Friday’s action is directed at easing the 28-judge court’s high case backlog and delays in processing cases.

“Everybody has problems with opinions coming out of the court,” Stevens said. “This has nothing to do with its opinions.”

As written, the measure would recast the 9th Circuit so that it serves California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The new court would have 15 judges and about 60 percent of the current court’s caseload.

Other states that now fall under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction - Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Alaska, Nevada and Arizona - would be part of a newly created 12th Circuit, with 13 judges.

But Stevens said the bill gives Hawaii the option of shifting to the 12th Circuit, and based on conversations he’s had with Hawaii senators, Stevens said he thinks it would chose to join the smaller states under the new court.

“California will have a court with it as the only state,” Stevens said.

The spending bill goes to the full Senate spending committee Tuesday, and later to the Senate floor where Feinstein and Boxer are poised to challenge the court reorganization.

Feinstein called the Senate spending panel’s action “wholly inappropriate” and a usurpation of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction over the federal courts.

“We will fight it,” Feinstein, a judiciary committee member, said in a prepared statement. “I believe that the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will fight it. Until some acceptable alternative is adopted, we will do our utmost to prevent the adoption of this bill.”

Boxer’s press aide, David Sandretti, said the court’s division is “unnecessary” and “Senator Boxer is opposed to it.”

Pressure has been building for more than three decades to divide the court, which was recommended by a 23-year-old comprehensive study. Sitting judges at the appeals court have consistently opposed a division.

Feinstein, fighting a 1995 bill by Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., to divide the court, argued that there’s no evidence a division would make it more efficient. In fact, she said, court reforms in recent years have helped the 9th Circuit dispose of more cases annually than are filed.

Gorton’s bill, although it cleared the committee on a party-line, 11-7 vote, was amended to call only for further study.

Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski, joined by Western Republican senators, introduced a new court-division bill soon after the new congressional session opened this year.

With Stevens as the new chairman of the Senate spending committee, the two Alaskans suddenly were in a position to push the restructuring on a spending bill without any hearings. It cleared the subcommittee without debate Friday morning.