Many of the courts in the United States are funded locally. Some are limited jurisdiction traffic courts and some have broader authority. Particularly when there are tight economic times there is pressure to look at the “fine revenue” that is generated by these courts.

In Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 93 SCt. 80 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote an opinion for the United States Supreme Court which held where the mayor before whom the petitioner was compelled to stand trial for traffic offenses was responsible for village finances, and the mayor’s court through fines, forfeitures, costs and fees, provided a substantial portion of the village funds, the petitioner was denied a trial before a disinterested and impartial judicial officer as guaranteed by the due process clause.

Whether that opinion brought complete closure to the practice is debatable. Now, a bill currently pending before the New Jersey Assembly would effectively ban municipal government officials from pressing Municipal Court Judges on the subject of how much revenue the courts/judges are producing.

The 539 Municipal Courts in New Jersey handle the state’s traffic/violation offenses along with minor criminal matters and are generally appointed by the municipal government for three year terms.

Under AB 2638 of 2014

No local government officer or employee shall discuss with any municipal court judge or any candidate for a municipal court judgeship pursuant to N.J.S.2B:12-4 the local government agency’s need for or reliance upon municipal court revenues.

AB 2638 has been assigned to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.