AN ACT relating to designation of special judges and declaring an emergency.
Summary
HB 569 amends Kentucky law governing the appointment of special judges when a circuit or district judge cannot preside because of absence, vacancy, or inability to act. Under current law, the Chief Justice may designate a regular or retired justice or judge to serve as a special judge in those circumstances. The bill keeps that process in place but adds a new pathway for parties or other persons to raise concerns about judicial impartiality in certain situations.
Specifically, the bill allows a party to file an affidavit with the circuit clerk alleging that a judge will not provide a fair and impartial trial or will not fairly decide a change-of-venue request. It also creates a separate process for any person to submit an affidavit to the Attorney General alleging that a judge will not impartially decide a question of law or a constitutional challenge to a statute in a pending civil case or appeal. If the Attorney General finds the affidavit is made in good faith and presents a prima facie claim that impartiality might reasonably be questioned, the affidavit is redacted to remove identifying information and forwarded to the Chief Justice for review. The Chief Justice then determines whether to appoint a special judge.
The bill’s impact is to expand the circumstances under which a special judge may be designated, while preserving the authority of the Chief Justice and maintaining the existing compensation rules for retired judges serving in that role. It affects Kentucky’s judicial administration statutes, the Office of the Chief Justice, the Attorney General’s office, and litigants in civil cases who seek reassignment based on alleged judicial bias or impartiality concerns.
The overall sentiment appears supportive, as reflected by the House veto override vote of 75-16, suggesting substantial bipartisan or at least broad legislative backing. The bill’s emergency declaration and the override vote indicate lawmakers viewed the measure as important and timely. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate here to show detailed arguments for or against the proposal.
The main point of contention is likely the new role given to the Attorney General and the expanded ability for nonparties to trigger review of a judge’s impartiality in civil cases. Supporters would likely see this as a safeguard for fairness and public confidence in the courts, while critics may view it as an unusual or potentially politicized mechanism that could be used to challenge judges or influence case assignment. The redaction and sealing provisions suggest the bill also tries to address privacy and defamation concerns associated with such affidavits.
Impact
HB 569 amends KRS 26A.020, Kentucky’s statute on designation of special judges, by adding a new affidavit-based process for raising concerns about judicial impartiality in civil cases and appeals. It preserves the Chief Justice’s authority to appoint a regular or retired justice or judge as special judge, but expands the circumstances under which that authority may be invoked and adds a screening role for the Attorney General. The bill also continues existing compensation rules under KRS 21A.110 for retired judges serving as special judges.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received in the House, where it passed a veto override by a vote of 75-16. That margin indicates broad support, though not unanimity. Because no committee discussion transcript is available, the record does not show detailed public debate, but the vote pattern and emergency designation suggest lawmakers viewed the measure as a significant judicial administration reform.
Contention
The likely controversy centers on the new affidavit process allowing a person to ask the Attorney General to review allegations that a judge may not impartially decide a question of law or constitutional challenge in a civil case. Supporters may argue this creates a check on judicial bias and protects litigants’ rights, while opponents may worry it gives the Attorney General an unusual gatekeeping role and could be used strategically to pressure judges or disrupt case assignment. Privacy, defamation, and the potential politicization of judicial reassignment are also likely points of concern, which is why the bill includes redaction and sealing provisions.