The Judicial Reform Act: History, Analysis, and Comment

Abstract

On October 15, I965, Senator Joseph D. Tydings announced on the Senate floor that his Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary had initiated a comprehensive study of the federal courts and would soon begin hearings on a number of proposed reforms, including an alternate procedure for removal of federal judges found unfit by reason of physical or mental incapacity, inefficiency, or corruption.' On February 15, I966, the Tydings subcommittee began exploratory hearings on the subject of judicial fitness, concentrating on the experience and laws of the several states, with attention finally focusing on the New York Court on the Judiciary and the California Commission on Judicial Qualifications. Following a year of study, research, discussion, and analysis, the Judicial Reform Act was drafted and introduced by Senator Tydings on February 28, i968.2 Further hearings were held and the Act, with minor changes, was reintroduced in the Ninety-first Congress.3 Judicial Reform Act consists of five titles, the first establishing a Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure; the second relating to the retirement of judges; the third revising the judicial survivor annuity program; the fourth dealing with conflicts of interest and financial disclosure; the fifth providing district judge representation on the circuit councils, the appointment of court executives, and establishing an age limitation for promotion to chief judge. While each of these proposals is important and has as its objective the improvement of the administration of justice, the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure is by far the most significant, far-reaching, and controversial. As acknowledged by Senator Tydings, The primary feature of the act, however, is the establishment of a permanent Commission on Disabilities and Tenure . . . .4 It is therefore upon title I of the Judicial Reform Act that this article will focus.