In Re the Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6
2017 ND 181
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Judge M. Richard Geiger (Judgeship No. 6, chambers in Grafton, Northeast Judicial District) announced retirement effective October 1, 2017, creating a statutory vacancy under N.D.C.C. § 27-05-02.1.
- The Supreme Court must decide within 90 days whether the office is necessary for effective judicial administration, and may fill, transfer, or abolish the vacant judgeship.
- The Court provided notice and solicited written comments per N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 7.2; the Northeast Judicial District submitted a report supporting retention and provided population and caseload data; no petitions were received to relocate the vacancy.
- Statewide weighted caseload data through May 2017 showed a modest overall reduction in judicial officer need, but the Northeast Judicial District continued to show a slight overage; administrative challenges in large rural districts weighed against elimination.
- The Supreme Court (majority) concluded the office is necessary for effective judicial administration in the Northeast Judicial District and ordered Judgeship No. 6 at Grafton be filled under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-25.
- Justice Crothers dissented, arguing the judgeship should be transferred to the Northeast Central Judicial District (Grand Forks) to address broader statewide judicial officer deficits, improve efficiencies, and adapt to shrinking judicial resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vacant Judgeship No. 6 at Grafton is necessary where it is chambered | Northeast Judicial District: retain and fill the judgeship in Grafton due to local caseload and rural administrative needs | Crothers (dissent): transfer the judgeship to Northeast Central (Grand Forks) to address larger statewide deficits and efficiencies | Majority held the office is necessary in the Northeast Judicial District and ordered it filled at Grafton |
| Whether the Court should transfer or abolish the judgeship instead of filling it | N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 7.2 consultation supported filling the position; no relocation petitions received | Crothers: Court has authority and should proactively consider transfer and chamber relocation to rebalance statewide resources | Held Court may transfer or abolish but, based on record and consultation, declined transfer and retained the judgeship |
| Role of weighted caseload data in decision-making | District: data and local report justify retention given rural logistical constraints | Crothers: statewide weighted caseloads show shortages in other districts; moving the chamber would improve efficiencies and address shortages | Held caseload data considered; slight district overage and rural administration concerns led to retention |
| Whether lack of public petitions bars relocation | Majority: absence of petitions and supporting comments favors filling locally | Crothers: lack of requests does not relieve Court of duty to reallocate judicial resources where needed | Held lack of petitions noted but Court nonetheless must decide; Court exercised discretion to retain judgeship |
Key Cases Cited
- Vacancy in Judgeship No. 2, Northeast Judicial District, 2017 ND 85, 892 N.W.2d 886 (reference to recent related vacancy decision)
- In re Resident Chambers for Dist. Judgeship No. 7, Northwest Judicial Dist., 2005 ND 221, 707 N.W.2d 251 (discussing community impact of transferring chambers and allocation of judicial resources)
- In re Judicial Vacancy in Dist. Judgeship No. 6, 2001 ND 199, 637 N.W.2d 3 (noting that needs of one chambered district must be compared to other districts)