County officials upset over House Bill 327

County officials upset over House Bill 327; ask Castlen and Calloway for help to block passage

Officials involved in Hancock County’s courts are vigorously fighting against the passage of a bill that would merge the county’s court system with that of Daviess County, which opponents say is a bad mix of rural and urban and will leave Hancock with less representation in the courts.

House Bill 327, which is co-sponsored by D.J. Johnson, who represents part of Daviess County in the 13th District, moves Hancock County from the 38th circuit and district, where it’s currently paired with Butler, Edmonson and Ohio counties, to the 6th, which is currently Daviess County alone.

As a result of the move, the 6th District would be allowed a fourth district family court judge, which the bill says would be designated as a family court position.
It was introduced on February 2 but in the past week has been moving through the committees and toward a floor vote.

The proposal comes after a study by the Administrative Office of the Courts determined that Daviess County needed help in its family court, where right now there’s one sitting judge.

Hancock County and the 38th District have a total of four judges, including one family court judge, but the 6th, after the change, would have seven, with two being family court judges.

Hancock County Attorney Paul Madden, Jr. said he understands the need for help in the 6th, but that there are several issues with merging Hancock with the larger Daviess County. Other large counties like Warren, Fayette and Jefferson are in their own circuits and districts.

One complaint about putting a rural county with a larger county like Daviess is the potential to get lost in the mix, instead of standing as an equal partner with other small counties, becoming just a small part of someone else’s system.
“I guess my big concern with it, we will only be 8 percent of the total representation of the circuit, which means we’re going to be overlooked and overshadowed,” Madden, Jr. said.

Evidence of that, he says, is that judges in Daviess County were asked about moving one of their existing district judges to a family court position, but after they rejected the idea it wasn’t pursued. Officials in Hancock County weren’t given the same chance for input, he said.

Having fewer judges that know the communities they serve is an advantage of being in a rural court system, Madden said, and he’s worried that having seven judges, all new to Hancock County residents, will be a detriment overall.
“I’m concerned that there will be seven judges in the circuit and what kind of a continuity and semblance of consistency will we see when we’re dealing with seven different judges,” he said.

Right now the judges in the 38th travel to each of the four county courthouses, something that the judges in the 6th don’t have to do. After a merger, the question becomes whether all seven judges would travel to the county for court on different days, or whether some would be assigned to the county.

If Hancock is moved to the 6th the residents would be voting for all seven judges, Madden questions the legality of allowing residents to vote for judges that they never have access to in their court system.
One person with a particularly unique perspective on the situation is county resident John McCarty, a sitting district judge in the 38th District, who happens to also be filling in part-time in family court in the 6th.
He’s opposed to HB327 on the grounds that it’s an uneven pairing, in addition to the fact that no one has figured out how it would actually operate.
“We’ve kind of worked the kinks out of the 38th about how to share authority, power, how to run dockets,” McCarty said. “Should they move Hancock out and put it into Daviess, they’re going to have to develop a whole new way to handle court.

“I don’t know if a lot of thought has gone into that and it may not until it actually happens,” he said.
The easiest and best fix for the problem is apparently not really an option.
“The best way to handle it would be to add another judgeship,” he said. But, “the legislature has kind of made it clear they’re not open to creating a new judgeship.”

That only leaves redistricting or changing the roles of existing judges, much like his own role has been modified by Kentucky Chief Justice John D. Minton to help in the short-term by shifting the allocation of existing resources.
“So that’s kind of what he did with me, he made an allocation,” McCarty said. “He didn’t create a position, he just kind of moved one around a little bit and made it a half and half position.”
Something like that could be the answer for Daviess County while leaving Hancock in its existing district.

“He could take one of the district judges and make it a part-time position… and make a person do what I’m doing, which is both family and the district,” he said.

Representative Josh Calloway, who represents the 10th District that covers Hancock County, said he is also opposed to the bill, but defeating it will be a matter of spreading the word to other representatives who might not put a lot of thought into something that is so specific to a county that’s not one of theirs.
“Here’s the strange thing about it is that 95 percent of legislators up here could care less about this bill. It means absolutely nothing to them,” Calloway said.
“So it makes it hard to resist it and to push back we have to go lobby our own caucus,” he said, “because when they bring it to the floor it’s like oh, DJ’s bringing this to the floor, it must be important to him, we support him.”

Opposition is strong from Hancock County, with seven local attorneys, judge-executive Johnny “Chic” Roberts, circuit clerk Mike Boling and district judges McCarty and J.B. Hines all opposing HB327.

By Dave Taylor

dave.hancockclarion
@gmail.com