Judiciary expansion bill passes House vote | Arkansas Democrat Gazette
WASHINGTON — What was once a bipartisan effort to expand by 66 the number of federal district judgeships across the country passed the House of Representatives on Thursday. However, the prospects for the bill becoming law remain uncertain after Republicans chose to bring the measure to the floor only after the election results indicated President-elect Donald Trump had secured a second term.
The legislation is designed to spread the establishment of new trial court judgeships over more than a decade, allowing three presidential administrations and six Congresses the chance to appoint the new judges. This careful design aims to prevent either political party from gaining an advantage in shaping the federal judiciary.
While the Senate passed the measure unanimously in August, the Republican-led House brought it to the floor only once the election results were confirmed. The bill passed with a vote of 236-173 on Thursday, with the majority of Democrats opposing it.
All four of Arkansas’ Republican representatives; Rick Crawford, French Hill, Bruce Westerman and Steve Womack voted in favor of the bill.
The White House has indicated that if President Joe Biden receives the bill, he would veto it. This likely jeopardizes the bill’s chances this Congress, as overriding a presidential veto would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate—something the House vote fell well short of.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the sponsor of the House version of the bill, expressed regret to his colleagues for the timing. He stated, “But we are where we are,” emphasizing that failure to pass the legislation would lead to a growing case backlog, which he claimed is costing American businesses billions of dollars and forcing prosecutors to accept more plea agreements from criminal defendants.
“It would only be pettiness today if we were not to do this because of who got to be first,” Issa warned.
In contrast, Democrats accused GOP leaders of breaking the agreement that was central to the bill by opting not to bring it up for a vote before the mid-term elections. New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, the lead Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, remarked, “Unfortunately, we are back where we have always been every time a bill to create new judgeships comes before Congress—with one party seeking a tactical advantage over the other.”
Organizations representing judges and attorneys strongly urged Congress to approve the bill, regardless of the timing of congressional action, pointing out that the lack of new federal judgeships has contributed to significant delays in case resolutions and serious concerns regarding access to justice.
The presidents of the Federal Judges Association and Federal Bar Association issued a joint statement prior to the vote, stating, “Failure to enact the JUDGES Act will condemn our judicial system to more years of unnecessary delays and will deprive parties in the most impacted districts of obtaining appropriate justice and timely relief under the rule of law.”
The shift in perspective from some Democrats and the renewed urgency from House Republicans highlighted the contentious atmosphere surrounding federal judicial vacancies. Today, Senate roll-call votes are required for nearly every judicial nominee, and most deciding votes for the Supreme Court and appellate courts occur largely along party lines. Lawmakers typically hesitate to provide presidents from the opposing party new opportunities to influence the judiciary.
