Study of Circuit Courts

Re “New Ploy in a War on a Court,” editorial, Nov. 20:

As the lone Californian on the appropriations conference committee, I took the lead in resisting the arbitrary split of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals proposed by the Senate. The split was unanimously opposed by the ideologically diverse, 54-member California congressional delegation.

The editorial accurately described the senatorial motives behind the attempt to divide the 9th, as well as problems created by the court’s 10 judicial vacancies. It was far less accurate in its description of the commission created to study this matter as a “thinly disguised” effort toward splitting the circuit. The commission was a hard-fought compromise against an intransigent Senate position, and was embraced by The Times in a Sept. 8 editorial.

The Times also takes issue with Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s role in the appointment of commission members. It is true that he has disagreed with 9th Circuit decisions. However, as the chief administrative officer of the nation’s courts, he is charged with ensuring that the judiciary functions effectively. I trust that he will make appointments to the commission that reflect that duty. In any event, until we see a balanced study reflecting a thoughtful approach to the problems of the entire appeals court system and the 9th Circuit, there are many of us in Congress who will continue to fervently oppose legislative initiatives to split the 9th.

REP. JULIAN C. DIXON

D-Los Angeles