An Act to amend and reenact § 17.1-917 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 4 of Chapter 3 of Title 19.2 a section numbered 19.2-43.1, relating to the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission; magistrates; availability of complaint forms in courthouses.
HB342 requires complaint forms related to judicial and magistrate misconduct to be more readily available in Virginia courthouses. It amends § 17.1-917 to direct that, in all state courts, a public sign must explain how to obtain downloadable electronic complaint forms developed by the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission (JIRC), and that paper copies of those forms must be available in every clerk’s office. The sign must also indicate where the paper forms can be found.
The bill also adds a new § 19.2-43.1 requiring standardized complaint forms used by the Department of Magistrate Services for complaints against magistrates to be available in paper form in every clerk’s office in all state courts, with posted notice of their availability and location. In practical terms, the measure is aimed at improving public access to complaint procedures and making it easier for individuals to file complaints about judges or magistrates without needing to rely solely on online access.
HB342 affects court administration and public access requirements in Virginia by imposing new posting and form-availability duties on state courts and clerk’s offices. It expands the statutory framework governing the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission and magistrate complaint processes by requiring both electronic access information and physical paper forms to be available in courthouses statewide. The bill does not change the substantive standards for filing complaints, but it changes how the public can obtain the forms and information needed to initiate those complaints.
The available context suggests the bill was noncontroversial and received no recorded opposition in the provided materials. Its purpose appears administrative and transparency-focused, emphasizing easier public access to complaint forms rather than altering judicial discipline policy. The absence of committee transcripts or vote details indicates there is no documented debate in the supplied record, but the enacted chapter status suggests the measure advanced successfully.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided voting history or committee discussion, because none were supplied. Potential areas of concern, if raised, would likely involve the administrative burden on clerk’s offices, the costs of posting signs and maintaining paper forms, or questions about whether paper availability is necessary given electronic access. However, the record provided does not show any member or stakeholder explicitly opposing those requirements.