Bill Text: NJ A3340 | 2016-2017 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Provides parties offering public remarks before Senate committee concerning qualifications of Superior Court judge nominees, upon motion, change of venue on family actions, to vicinage other than vicinage where nominee is assigned if confirmed.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2016-02-22 - Introduced, Referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee [A3340 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2016-A3340-Introduced.html
Sponsored by:
Assemblyman ROBERT AUTH
District 39 (Bergen and Passaic)
SYNOPSIS
Provides parties offering public remarks before Senate committees concerning qualifications of Superior Court judge nominees, upon motion, change of venue on family actions, to vicinage other than vicinage where nominee is assigned if confirmed.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning public input to assist the Senate's review of gubernatorial nominees to be judges of the Superior Court, and supplementing chapter 2 of Title 2B of the New Jersey Statutes.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. a. With respect to a nomination to be a judge of the Superior Court, including the nomination of a current judge of the Superior Court for reappointment, whenever a party to a family action or proceeding instituted in the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, whether pre-judgment or post-judgment, presents oral remarks at a public meeting of any Senate committee reviewing the nomination, concerning the character or qualifications of the nominee, that party shall, upon the party's motion, be granted a change of venue, to the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court located in another vicinage other than the vicinage to which the nominee is assigned, if confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate, with respect to all further actions or proceedings arising out of or otherwise related to the previously instituted family action or proceeding based upon the substantial doubt that fair and impartial treatment for those further actions or proceedings can be had if adjudicated in the same venue.
b. (1) The party's motion shall be made to the same court in which the party's previously instituted family action or proceeding was last adjudicated or awaits further consideration.
(2) The court reviewing the party's motion for a change of venue shall consider the interests of the moving party as well as the interests of all other parties from the previously instituted family action or proceeding when ordering the new venue.
2. This act shall take effect immediately, and apply to any party offering oral remarks at a public meeting of any committee of the Senate reviewing a nomination to be a judge of the Superior Court occurring on or after the effective date.
STATEMENT
This bill concerns the public's participation with the Senate's review of gubernatorial nominees to be judges of the Superior Court. Specifically, the bill would provide a party to a previously instituted family action or proceeding, who presents public remarks before any Senate committee reviewing a Superior Court judicial nomination or re-nomination concerning the character or qualifications of the nominee, the ability to receive a change of venue on further family matters arising out of or otherwise related to the previously instituted action or proceeding.
The change of venue would be made by motion of the party to the same court in which the party's previously instituted family action or proceeding was last adjudicated or awaiting further consideration. The venue change granted by the court would be to another vicinage, other than the vicinage to which the nominee is assigned if confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The court would consider the interests of the moving party as well as the interests of all other parties from the previously instituted family action or proceeding in the selection of the new venue.
The bill incorporates the court rule standard for permitting a venue change based on "substantial doubt that a fair and impartial" proceeding can be had in a current venue, due to the party's public remarks directed at the judicial nominee, as the justification for granting the moving party's request for the change of venue. See R. 4:3-3(a).
