The State Court Systems

Largely by historical accident, each of our states has a veritable maze of separate courts, each with its particular powers directly or indirectly derived from the state constitu tion. This atomized hierarchy of courts prevents efficient ad ministration of justice, creates issues for litigation extraneous to the merits of the case, involves successive trials and suc cessive appeals before final decision, and contributes in other ways to congestion and delay. England modernized its court structure in 1875, but in the United States it was not till the close of the first half of this century that Missouri, New Jersey, and California led the way of constitutional reform. The movement has gained considerable momentum during the past five years. Simplification of the court structure, central ad ministrative authority, and procedural reform must be accom panied by measures designed to assure the quality and inde pendence of the judiciary. Adversary election of judges in thirty-six states is a major obstacle. Here, also, Missouri led the way with a plan combining the best features of the appointive and elective methods. A handful of states have adopted variations of the plan, and arduous campaigns for its adoption have been, and will again be, conducted elsewhere.