DOCSLIB.ORG

New Dimensions for Justice : Report of the Commission to Study the Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Dimensions for Justice : Report of the Commission to Study the Future MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) All are architects of fate Working in these walls of time Some with massive deeds and Great Some with ornaments of rhyme Nothing useless is or low each thing in its place is best And what seems but idle show Strengthens and supports the rest For the structure that we raise time is with materials filled Our todays and yesterdays Are the blocks with which we build . .. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow "Tile Builders" The sculpture shown here can be seen in its entirety at the West Bath District Courthouse, West Bath, Maine. Created by Jeanne Bruce of Temple, Maine, the piece presents humanity in its many faces, occupations, family structures, hopes, disappointments. Images of the piece appear throughout this report as pictorial representation~ of this report's theme, New Dimensions for Justice. So, too, we present images of the past, many from the Cleaves Law Library archives as we recognize What's Past is Prologue. NEW DIMENSIONS for JUSTICE Report of the Commission to Study the Future of Maine's Courts This project was primarily financed by the State Justice Institute, the Libra Foundation, and the National Institute for Dispute Resolution. Points of view expressed herein are those of the Commission and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the funding agencies. MMISSION TO STUDY THE FUTURE OF MAINE'S COURTS February 28, 1993 Hon. Harriet P. Henry Commlosion Cho~2-2375 Anita Alexander District Court Clerks-443-6606 Rep. Cushman D. Anthony The Honorable Gerald P. Conley, Jr., Co-Chair Judiciary Committee-775-6371 Hon. Constance D. Cote, Co-Chair Michael P. Asen Family Law Section-MSBA-775-3101 Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary Ralph W. Austin State House Moine State Bar Association-985-3352 Augusta, Maine 04333 Dana R. Baggett Slate Court Administrator--879-4710 Sally A. Bourget Dear Senator Conley and Representative Cote: Superior Court Clerks-783-6450 James C. Chute It is with great pleasure that I transmit the final report of the Commis­ Clerk, Supreme Judicial Court--822-4146 sion to Study the Future of Maine's Courts. In carrying out our Hon. Dana A. Cleaves Administrative Court--822-4291 assignment, we have faced the incompatibility and inevitable tension Hon. Bernard M. Devine between futurist planning and addressing the short-range issues District Court--822-4171 required by our legislative mandate. This dichotomy of purpose per­ Nan Heald meated all Commission activity and is reflected in the final report. Pine Tree Legal Assistonce-774-4753 Barry J. Hobbins 1988-90 Judiciary Committee--282-5985 This two year study is perhaps the most comprehensive study of the Sen. Muriel D. Holloway courts since statehood. It has been a very exciting project. In many Judiciary Committe&-882-6879 cases the process has been as important as the product. The Commis­ RogerJ. Katz Maine Trial Lawyers Association---622·3711 sion has acted as catalyst for projects that are already underway in the Derek P. Langhauser Judicial Branch and facilitated dialogue between sectors of state gov­ Office of the Governor-289-3531 ernment that heretofore have not communicated. Our recommendations Hon. Kermit V. Lipez reflect broad input from the legal community and the public. Superior Court--822-4153 Alan D. MacEwan Verrill & Dana-774-4000 Although the Commission's future focus has been tempered by our Rep. Carolyne T. Mahany legislative directive, we have continually stressed the magnitude and Taxation Committee-488-2741 inevitability of change that society and the courts will face in the next J arret T. Mills District Attorneys' Association-784-1397 millennium. Our recommendations are designed to provide the flexibil­ Hon. Richard M. Morton ity and the resources necessary to plan for and anticipate change, rather Probate Judges Assembly-778-5888 than react to new challenges on a crisis basis. Rep. Patrick E. Paradis Judiciary Committe&-823-9482 The hard work of the Commission and Task Forces members and the John H. Rich, III Perkins Thompson Hinckley &Keddy-774-2635 dedication of our very able project director have made this report possi­ ble. We are also indebted to many people within Maine and out-of-state Hon. David G. Roberts Supreme Judicial Court--822-4180 but are especially grateful to Chief Justice Vincent L. McKusick for his Hon. John C. Sheldon initial enthusiasm and encouragement and to Chief Justice Daniel District Court-743-8942 E. Wathen for his continuing support of the project. Justice Wathen's Theodore R. Tracy first-in-the-nation introduction of participatory decision-making in the Association of Registers of Probate---743.6671 management of a Judicial Branch heralds the magnitude of change that William K. Tyler Connict Solutions-772-7474 will occur in the courts in the 21st Century. Vendean V. Vafiades Chief Deputy Attorney Genera~26-8800 John B. Wootten Sincerely, Dirigo Investments-667-9963 Prof. L. Kinvin Wroth UM School ofLow-780-4566 ~~~\~~ Staff Harriet P. Henry, Chair Kathryn Monahan Ainsworth Project Director Susanna Adams Administrative Assistant 142 Federal Street, Room 317 e Portland, Maine 04101 " (207) 822-4164 TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... i SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... .ii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 Paradigm Shifts for the Justice System ....................................... 2 As Maine Approaches the Next Millennium ............................ 6 A Choice of Futures ...................................................................... 15 I. PUBLIC VOICE AND CUSTOMER FOCUS ............................... 24 A. Public Input .............................................................................. 25 B. Information and Support within the Court System ........... 25 C. Facilities and Services ............................................................. 27 D. Education about the Justice System ...................................... 29 II. ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES .................................................. 32 A. Legal Services ........................................................................... 33 B. Court Appointments ............................................................... 34 C. Private Sector ............................................................................ 35 III. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ALTERNATIVES ............................. 38 A. Court-connected Dispute Resolution ................................... .40 B. Community Dispute Resolution ........................................... .48 C. Private Sector Dispute Resolution ......................................... 50 D. Public Sector Dispute Resolution .......................................... 50 E. Education about Dispute Resolution .................................... 53 IV. TRIAL AND CASE MANAGEMENT ....................................... 56 A. Rules of Procedure and Evidence ......................................... 57 B. Case Management Procedures ............................................... 57 C. Jury Management ........................................................ , ........... 59 D. Forms and Standard Procedures ........................................... 59 E. Criminal Justice Issues ............................................................ 61 V. STRUCTURE AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURT SYSTEM ................................................................... 66 A. Structure of System ................................................................. 67 B. Jurisdiction ............................................................................... 74 VI. ADMINISTRATION OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH .............. 76 A. Lines of Authority ................................................................... 77 B. Planning Capability ................................................................ 78 C. Evaluation and Measurement of Court Performance ........ 79 D. Technology ............................................................................... 80 E. Training and Education for Court Personnel ..................... 83 F. Judges ........................................................................................ 86 G. Magistrates ............................................................................... 87 VII. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL BRANCH ........................................ 88 A. Budget ....................................................................................... 89 B. Management Issues ................................................................. 90 C. Interbranch Communication VII. IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................. 94 ACTION PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION .................................. 96 APPENDIXES ..................................................................................... 111 Commission Background and Methodolgy .............................. 112 Commission Members, Task Force Members, Consultants .... 115 Key Reports Generated for the Commission ............................. 118 Highlights of Commission Activity ............................................ 120 Glossary of Terms .........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Testimony of Deirdre M. Smith, Esq. Regarding LD 719, Resolve, To
    Testimony of Deirdre M. Smith, Esq. regarding LD 719, Resolve, To Establish the Commission To Create a Plan To Incorporate the Probate Courts into the Judicial Branch submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, April 1, 2021. Good afternoon, Senator Carney, Representative Harnett, and other members of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary. My name is Deirdre M. Smith, and I am a resident of Pownal, Maine. I am an attorney as well as a professor on the faculty of the University of Maine School of Law. I am also the Director of the Law School’s legal aid clinic, where I supervise student attorneys who represent low-income Maine residents with matters in federal and state courts and agencies. My testimony in support of LD 719 represents my personal views only and not the position of the University of Maine School of Law or the University of Maine System. Our Clinic students represent litigants in matters in county Probate Courts around the state. When I started supervising those cases several years ago, I was immediately struck by the sharp differences between the Probate Courts and state courts. The District and Superior Courts are part of a system, and therefore they have a central administration to support and oversee the work of all clerks and judges, as well as uniform procedures and forms, training programs, an alternative dispute resolution program, data collection, and other features. By contrast, each Probate Court operates independently--with its own procedures, forms, and protocols--and therefore cannot benefit from the efficiencies, uniformity, and support of being part of a system of courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Howell-V-Howell-Petition.Pdf
    FiL.L~D 15 FEB I 6 2 316 No. ©FF]CE ©F T~E CLEfiK IN THE JOHN HOWELL, Petitioner, Vt SANDRA HOWELL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI KEITH BERKSHIRE ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY BERKSHIRE LAW OFFICE Counsel of Record 5050 N. 40th St., BENJAMIN M. EIDELSON* Suite 340 JENNER & BLOCK LLP Phoenix, AZ 85018 1099 New York Ave., NW (602) 396-7669 Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000 aunikowsky@j enner.com *Not admitted in D.C.; supervised by principals of the Firm. BLANK PAGE i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act preempts a state court’s order directing a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for a reduction in the former spouse’s portion of the veteran’s military retirement pay, where that reduction results from the veteran’s post-divorce waiver of retirement pay in order to receive compensation for a service-connected disability. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ...............................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................v PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI .................1 OPINIONS BELOW ..........................................................1 JURISDICTION .................................................................1 STATUTES INVOLVED .................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................4 A. Statutory Framework .................................5 B. Proceedings Below ......................................7
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, Ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO
    STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-07-73 Douglas H. Watts | Petitioner | Response of | Petitioner v. | to Respondents | Motions | to Dismiss. Maine Board of | Environmental Protection | Respondent 1. Respondents claim that no Maine court has any right to review any Maine BEP denial of any Maine citizen’s petition under 38 MRSA §341-D(3) to modify any Maine water quality certification on any Maine river. This means that if the Maine BEP issues a legally defective 30 year license that causes an entire Maine river to be killed and the Maine BEP refuses to fix the license, the river must stay dead for the next 30 years and nobody can do anything about it. This is what is happening now on Messalonskee Stream in Waterville, Maine. Because the Maine BEP refuses to fix its own correctable error, Messalonskee Stream is now being killed. The goal of Maine’s water quality laws is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the State’s waters ... “ 38 MRSA §464(1). The purpose of water quality certification is to confirm that the discharge will comply with state water quality standards.1 For hydro dams, the life spans of water quality certifications match those of the federal dam licenses, from 30 to 50 years. If a water quality certification does not allow for attainment of legal water quality standards during the license term, the Legislature’s purpose in enacting water quality standards is not achieved. For this reason, the BEP can modify water quality certifications to correct defects in them that defeat their statutory purpose.2 1 “This provision may be the most important action of this legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • EIGHTEENTH LEGISLATURE. No
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) DOCUMENTS PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATURE, OF THE STATE OF MAINE, DURING ITS SESSION A. D. 1838. [Title page supplied by Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library; no title page in original volume] EIGHTEENTH LEGISLATURE. No. t. HOlJSE. The Joint Select Committee, to whom was referred the votes for Governor, given in the several cities, towns and plan­ tations in this State, having had the same under consideration, ask leave to REPORT: That the whole number of votes for Governor, which have been legally and constitutionally returned from the several cities, towns and plantations in the State, is sixty-eight thou­ sand five hundred and twenty-three; that the number necessary to constitute an election, is thirty-four thousand two hundred and sixty-two; that Edward Kent has thirty-four thousand three hundred and fifty-eight ; that Gorham Parks has thirty-three thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine ; other persons have two hundred and eighty-six; and that Edward Kent having re­ ceived one hundred and ninety-three votes more than all other persons voted for, is constitutionally elected Governor of the State of Maine. The return of votes from the town of Bristol, was not certi­ fied on the inside by the town Clerk. These votes were allow­ ed and counted; for Edward Kent, two hundred and twenty­ five ; and for Gorham Parks, two hundred and twenty-eight.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Judicial Branch
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from electronic originals (may include minor formatting differences from printed original) ANNUAL 2005 REPORT Maine judicial Branch MISSION: To administer justice by providing a safe, accessible, efficient, and impartial system of dispute resolution that serves the public interest, protects individual rights, and instills respect for the law. GREATER EmCIINCIIS AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE SECURING THE COURTS Maine's Judicial Branch completed a The citizens of Maine come to the courts very productive 2005. Plans to improve seeking resolution for a wide range of efficiencies and expand access to justice have problems. They come as litigants, as jurors, been foremost in our efforts. Maine's first as witnesses, and in many other roles. They Co-Occurring Disorders Court was launched must be able to address emotional, complex, in Kennebec County through the leadership and personal issues in an environment that of Justice Nancy Mills. A new Family Drug is safe, comfortable, and accessible. The Leigh I. Saufley Treatment Court has been initiated by Judge Jarnes"fed"Glessner design of facilities, the professionalism of Chief)ustire State Court Administrator Maine Supreme John Beliveau in the Lewiston District Court. staff, and the existence of security systems JudiciaiCourt Progress on videoconferencing is moving are essential components in a well-designed court system. from the planning stage into reality, with video arraignments and mental health hearings as the initial uses. To enhance public safety, 2005 saw numerous improvements to court facilities and the the Judicial Branch now provides law enforcement with immediate start of plans for a modern courthouse in Bangor.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the State Compensation Commission
    MAINE STATE COMPENSATION COMMISSION FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2020 STAFF: MEMBERS: Julie Jones, Senior Legislative Analyst Vendean Vafiades, Chair, Appointed by the Commission Lauren Metayer, Legislative Analyst Christine Brawn, Appointed by the President of the Senate 5 State House Station Joyce Oreskovich, Appointed by the President of the Senate Augusta, Maine 04333 Kathryn Rand, Appointed by the Speaker of the House (207) 287-1635 Timothy Schneider, Appointed by the Speaker of the House Members: Staff: Vendean Vafiades, Chair Julie Jones, Senior Legislative Analyst Christine Brawn Lauren Metayer, Legislative Analyst Joyce Oreskovich Kathryn Rand Timothy Schneider STATE OF MAINE STATE COMPENSATION COMMISSION TO: Members, 129th Legislature Senator Ned Claxton, Chair Representative Danny Martin, Chair Joint Standing Committee on State and Local Government FROM: Hon. Vendean Vafiades, Chair State Compensation Commission DATE: January 15, 2020 SUBJ: State Compensation Commission report pursuant to Title 3, section 2-B, subsection 2 In accordance with 3 MRSA section 2-B, sub section 2, the State Compensation Commission submits its January, 2020 Final Report. We thank you for the opportunity to review and recommend changes to the compensation and benefits of those who serve in Maine’s three branches of government. During the process of researching and considering our responsibilities, the Commission members developed an even greater respect and appreciation of all who serve and support the people of Maine. The Commission feels strongly that our proposed recommendations are necessary to move Maine’s public servants’ compensation from last in the nation to a more fair and reasonable level. The Commission is available to meet with you to discuss our thoughts and the specifics of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Coffin's Court: a Colleague's View
    Maine Law Review Volume 63 Number 2 Symposium:Remembering Judge Article 6 Frank M. Coffin: A Remarkable Legacy January 2011 Coffin's Court: A Colleague's View Levin Campbell Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Levin Campbell, Coffin's Court: A Colleague's View, 63 Me. L. Rev. 417 (2011). Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol63/iss2/6 This Article and Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COFFIN’S COURT: A COLLEAGUE’S VIEW The Honorable Levin Campbell I. JOINING THE COFFIN COURT II. MORE ABOUT THE CIRCUIT COURTS AND THE FIRST CIRCUIT OF THE ‘70S III. ABOUT COLLEAGUES AND FACILITIES ON THE COFFIN COURT IV. WHERE THE JUDGES WORKED V. FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDGES VI. GOING TO PUERTO RICO VII. COLLEGIALITY 418 MAINE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:2 COFFIN’S COURT: A COLLEAGUE’S VIEW The Honorable Levin Campbell* I. JOINING THE COFFIN COURT These reminiscences focus on the eleven years, from 1972 to 1983, that Frank M. Coffin of Maine was the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. While Coffin’s judicial career extended over more than forty years, I chose this period because it was a time when his influence over the court’s work was at its peak, as well as because he himself later singled it out as a “judicial Garden of Eden,”1 during which the First Circuit enjoyed its status as the last remaining three-judge federal court of appeals in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • The War After the War: Fort Kent Blockhouse, 1839-1842
    Maine History Volume 29 Number 3 Winter-Spring 1990; Vol. 29, No. 3 & 4 Article 3 1-1-1990 The War After the War: Fort Kent Blockhouse, 1839-1842 Sheila McDonald Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal Part of the Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation McDonald, Sheila. "The War After the War: Fort Kent Blockhouse, 1839-1842." Maine History 29, 3 (1990): 142-168. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal/vol29/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine History by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. s h e i l a McDo n a l d THE WAR AFTER THE WAR: FO R T KENT BLOCKHOUSE, 1839-1842 On March 23, 1839, the Maine State Legislature passed a resolve removing Maine’s militia from the brink of conflict in the Aroostook War. On that day, the Fort Kent blockhouse, destined to become one of the most enduring symbols of the war, was still six months away from construction at the conflu­ ence of the Fish and St. John rivers. Fort Kent did not rise out of bombast and calls to arms. It instead assumed its very strategic location gradually as Maine pushed to establish a toe-hold in the territory claimed by both Great Britain and the United States under the nebulous terms of the Treaty of Paris signed in 1783.
    [Show full text]
  • Huhtamaki, Inc., ME0037389, Draft Permit
    STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PAUL R. LEPAGE MELANIE LOYZlM GOVERNOR ACTING COMMISSIONER November 20, 2018 Mr. Tom Meucci 242 College Ave. Waterville, Maine 04901 [email protected] RE: Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) Permit #ME0037389 Maine Waste Discharge License (WDL) Application# W009105-5R-B-R Proposed Draft Permit Dear Mr. Meucci: Enclosed is a proposed draft MEPDES permit and Maine WDL (permit hereinafter) which the Department proposes to issue as a final document after opportunity for your review and comment. By transmittal ofthis letter you are provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposed draft permit and its conditions ( special conditions specific to this permit are enclosed; standard conditions applicable to all permits are available upon request). Ifit contains errors or does not accurately reflect present or proposed conditions, please respond to this Department so that changes can be considered. By copy ofthis letter, the Department is requesting comments on the proposed draft permit from various state and federal agencies, as required by our new regulations, and from any other parties who have notified the Department oftheir interest in this matter. All comments must be received in the Department ofEnvironmental Protection office on or before the close ofbusiness Thursday December 20, 2018. Failure to submit comments in a timely fashion will result in the final document being issued as drafted. Comments in writing should be submitted to my attention at the following
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Legislative Manual, 1865
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE \ ', ',, STATE OF ~AINE. 186 5. AUGUSTA: STEVENS & SAYWARD, PRINTERS TO THE STATB. 1865. JVIAlNE LEC+ ISLATJ\T_E 11ANUr\L. 18fi5. Prepared pur;,uant to order by 'l'HOMAS P. CLEAVES, ~ecretary of the Senate. AUGUS11 A: STEVENS & SAYWARD, PRINTERS TO THE STATE. 1K65. STA.1,E OF MAINE. IN SENATE, February I, 186f,. ORDERED, That the ~Acretary of the Senate be directed to prepare a Legislative Manual for 1865, containing a diagram of the Senate Chamber and the usual statistical matter, and that three hundred copies be printed for the use of the Senate. Read and passed, THOMAS P. CLEAVES, Secretary. A true cypy-Attest: THOMAS P. CLEAVES, Secretary. OONT:ENTS. PAGE, Civil Government, Heads of Departments, 2 Senators by Districts, 3 Senate of Maine, 4 Representatives by Counties, 6 House of Representatives, 11 Rules of the Senate, 16 Rules of the House, 24 ' Joint Rules of the two Houses, 40 Memoranda, 45 Standing Committees of the Senate, 47 Standing Committees of the House, 48 Joint Standing Committees, 51 ,Joint Select Committees, , 60 Executive and Legislative Officers of Maine from the organization of the State, 64 J udieiary of Maine, 68 Reporters of Decisions, 71 United States Senators, 72 Representatives in Congress from Maine, 72 State, Institutions, 74 County Officers, 76 Councillor Districts, 82 Length of Sessions of Legislature, 83 United States Government, 85 State Governments, 86 IV CONTEN'r8.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Party Formation in the United States a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Satisfaction of Th
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Party Formation in the United States Adissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Darin Dion DeWitt 2013 c Copyright by Darin Dion DeWitt 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Party Formation in the United States by Darin Dion DeWitt Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professor Thomas Schwartz, Chair This dissertation is about how political parties formed in the world’s first mass democracy, the United States. I trace the process of party formation from the bottom up. First, I ask: How do individuals become engaged in politics and develop political affiliations? In most states, throughout the antebellum era, the county was the primary unit of political admin- istration and electoral representation. Owing to their small size, contiguity, and economic homogeneity, I expect that each county’s active citizens will form a county-wide governing coalition that organizes and dominates local politics. Second, I ask: Which political actor had incentives to lure county organizations into one coalition? I argue that the institutional rules for electing United States Senators – indirect election by state legislature – induced prospective United States Senators to construct a majority coalition in the state legislature. Drawing on nineteenth century newspapers, I construct a new dataset from the minutes of political meetings in three states between 1820 and 1860. I find that United States Senators created state parties out of homogeneous counties. They encouraged cooperation among county-wide governing coalitions by canvassing annual county political meetings, drafting ii and revising a multi-issue policy platform that had the potential to unite a majority of the state’s county governing coalitions, encouraging individual counties to create county- wide committees of correspondence and vigilance, and, finally, organizing a permanent state central committee and regular state-wide conventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine State Legislature
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) Legislative Record House of Representatives One Hundred and Twenty-First Legislature State of Maine Volume III Second Special Session April 8, 2004 - April 30, 2004 Appendix House Legislative Sentiments Index Pages 1563-2203 Legislative Sentiments Legislative Record House of Representatives One Hundred and Twenty-First Legislature State of Maine LEGISLATIVE RECORD - HOUSE APPENDIX December 4, 2002 to November 30, 2004 APPENDIX TO THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD players Elizabeth Bruen, Stephanie Gonzales, Meredith McArdle, 121ST MAINE LEGISLATURE Chelsea Cote, Sara Farnum, Kristina Grimaldi, Ashley Higgins, Whitney Huse, Melissa Joyce, Emily Mason, Lindsay Monn, Dr. Ronald Lott, of Orono, who was presented with Ithe Ashley Beaulieu, Arielle DeRice, Emma Grandstaff, Callan Kilroy, Veterinary Service Award by the Maine Veterinary Medical Hannah Monn, Amanda Wood, Ashley Dragos, Hannah Jansen, Association. The award recognizes his tireless efforts, through Bridget Hester and Christina Capozza; assistant coach Andy the establishment of shelters, to care for unwanted animals. Dr. Pappas; and Head Coach Melissa Anderson. We extend our Lott began his work with stray animals as an intern at Rowley congratulations and best wishes to the team and the school on Memorial Animal Hospital. In 1981, he established Ithe this championship season; (HLS 8) Penobscot Valley Humane Society in Lincoln. Ten years later he the Falmouth "Yachtsmen" High School Boys Soccer Team, founded the Animal Orphanage in Old Town.
    [Show full text]