Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

technology systems. It also discusses the limited impact that the
proposal would have on the court system’s nonjudicial (including
union) employees.
Section Seven discusses the past arguments that have
been advanced by some groups in opposition to court reform.
These arguments have tended to focus on the perceived
unfairness of a system that would have the administrative ability
to reassign cases or judges (particularly elected judges) in a
manner that would contravene current jurisdictional lines. These
concerns and others, however, can be readily addressed, and none
of the past arguments should be accepted as a reason to avoid the
consolidation and improvements we propose.
Section Eight outlines the steps that must be followed if
reform is to be achieved. This includes, not only procedural steps
(as noted above, a draft constitutional amendment is included as
an appendix), but also thoughts on the types of consensusbuilding
that will be necessary to ensure that court restructuring
is once and for all a reality in New York State.
Court restructuring “would
offer administrative efficiencies,
not just by eliminating redundant
management
structures and the processing
of cases as they move from one
court to another, but by the
more efficient assignment of
judges. The bottom line would
be more efficient justice at
lower cost. Who could be
against that?”
– New York, with 12 Different
Courts, Needs to
Do Some Streamlining,
Buffalo News, May 24,
1998
A Court System for the Future, February 2007 13