There's a proposal going around the Capitol--it's called Senate Joint Resolution 8--that seems to be the result of irritation. And although irritation, like anger, can be a righteous thing on occasion, and can make a body overthrow the tables of the moneychangers when needed, a deliberative body like the state Senate really should find a nice spot in the sun and re-think things.
First, let the court of public opinion stipulate that Senate Joint Resolution 8--we'll just call it No. 8--would do a number of very good things. Things this column has endorsed several times over the years. Such as tort reform. Boy, does this state need tort reform.
There have been proposals in the past that would have limited attorney fees, and kept down those lottery-sized verdicts from juries that inflate the cost of everything from orange drinks to health care. Yes, yes, and yes again, this state needs tort reform. And this state's people have all but demanded it, if you look at the folks they've elected to statewide office.
But, and there's always a but ... .
Old No. 8 also gives lawmakers control over rules of the judiciary. And judges don't much like it when another branch of government starts nudging it on its own rules.
Why combine good proposals with an iffy one?
Well, if we can guess, and we can, it might have a lot to do with the courts themselves.
The people of this state, through its legislature, have tried to push tort reform through before. And the courts have struck down such measures. That's where the irritation comes in. You go to Little Rock promising to hog-tie all those lawyers getting rich on attorney fees and the courts toss out a perfectly good piece of legislation or constitutional amendment or initiated act saying you, Gentle Lawmaker, can do no such thing. And maybe because of a technicality. Such as when the courts throw out a proposed constitutional amendment based on the ballot title even before it can be voted on by the people. Which is one way to keep something judges don't like out of the constitution before it becomes enshrined, and before judges would have to abide by it.
That's gotta be irritating to lawmakers when the voters back home ask why tort reform can't be done. Seemingly forever out of reach.
So it appears as though lawmakers--or whomever wrote No. 8 for them--would change the rules so the Ledge were the referees on much of what is going on in the judiciary. Which seems much too complicated, over-reaching, and vague.
Wouldn't it be easier, and more acceptable to our judicial friends, if the law said that the Supreme Court couldn't rule on ballot titles of certain proposals? That would keep the judiciary from making end-runs around the people. But keep the judicial system from taking marching orders from the legislative branch.
Henry David Thoreau once advised, simplify, simplify. Ol' No. 8 looks much too complicated, complicated.
Put another way: Arkansas' lawmakers should be able to change offensive holding to a 5-yard penalty without throwing out the whole rule book. Here's hoping they do.
Editorial on 02/16/2017