Editing Archibald Cox (section)

===Judicial reform===
Cox's outside activities shifted from arbitration to government reform and appellate advocacy. In 1975, court reform was a top priority in Massachusetts where criminal cases had backlogged the system, which (because they required priority) resulted in even greater congestion of civil cases. Cox was appointed to a Massachusetts Bar committee to study the problem.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?men_tab=srchresults&handle=hein.barjournals/malr0060&size=2&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=303&id=338|last=Wadsworth|first=Charles Y.|title=President's Message: Judicial Reform!|journal=Massachusetts Law Quarterly|volume=60|number=4|date=December 1975|page=336|access-date=May 1, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160605083358/http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?men_tab=srchresults&handle=hein.barjournals%2Fmalr0060&size=2&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=303&id=338|archive-date=June 5, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}} Subscription required.)</ref> in February 1976 Governor [[Michael Dukakis]] appointed Cox to head the 20 member Governor's Select Committee on Judicial Needs to make recommendations. In December the committee issued the Cox-drafted report, entitled "Report on the State of the Massachusetts Court."<ref>Cox himself summarized the report in {{cite journal|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?men_tab=srchresults&handle=hein.barjournals/malr0062&size=2&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=189#&id=23|last=Cox|first=Archibald|title=The Report of the Governor's Committee on Judicial Needs|journal=Massachusetts Law Quarterly|volume=62|number=1|date=March 1977|pages=23–28|access-date=April 2, 2016|via=[[Heinonline.org]]|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160605123426/http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?men_tab=srchresults&handle=hein.barjournals%2Fmalr0062&size=2&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=189#&id=23|archive-date=June 5, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> The Report's most important recommendations were a structuring of the District Courts, state assumption of the administrative costs of the courts, placing management of the court system in the hands of the chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, abolition of trials ''de novo'' in appeals from the District Court and tightening of the rules for remand and continuances.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?men_tab=srchresults&handle=hein.journals/hlrec63&size=2&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=310&id=149|last=Jordan|first=Charles|title=Cox Judiciary Committee Nixes Trial De Novo, Reworks Budget|work=Harvard Law Record|volume=63|number=10|date=December 16, 1976|pages=1, 4|access-date=May 1, 2016|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160605082407/http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?men_tab=srchresults&handle=hein.journals%2Fhlrec63&size=2&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=310&id=149|archive-date=June 5, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Despite the fact that the Governor made judicial reform along the lines of the Cox report his "top" legislative priority for 1976, and despite the fact that the proposal was supported by the newspapers of the state, and despite intense lobbying efforts by Cox himself (not only in testimony before the legislatures but also in numerous speaking events throughout the state) over the course of 1976, the legislation ultimately ran out of time in the 1977 legislative session.{{efn|The recommendations faced an uphill battle through Massachusetts byzantine politics. The major problems were (i) the balkanized judicial system gave hundreds of independent enclaves of patronage, so the judiciary (including clerks and other officers) had no interest in reform; (ii) there existed a "terrible hatred" between the Governor and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (both of whom supported reform, and the chairmen and between the Senate and House Judiciary Committees (the later of which opposed reform); and (iii) the House kept inserting poison pills that would make the legislation unconstitutional (namely, making certain judges elected rather than appointed) and reusing to include a [[Severability|severability provision]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/5141774/obstacles_to_judicial_reform_in/|last=Swaim|first=Loring|title=Court Reform Faces Uncertain Future in House|work=Lowell [Mass.] Sun|date=November 27, 1977|page=E1|access-date=May 2, 2016|via=newspapers.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160602084638/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/5141774/obstacles_to_judicial_reform_in/|archive-date=June 2, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}} The continuation is on [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/5141820/obstacles_to_judicial_reform_in/ page E2] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160602084523/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/5141820/obstacles_to_judicial_reform_in/ |date=2016-06-02 }}.</ref> Late in the legislative season Cox tried to persuade the state's selectmen at an annual gathering that the bill would substantially ease their own budgets and benefit local governments especially,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/55018160/?terms=archibald%2Bcox%2Bjudicial%2Breform|last=Bird|first=Joan|title=Cox Puts Case for Reform Before State's Selectmen's Assn.|work=Berkshire [Mass.] Eagle|date=October 29, 1977|page=11|access-date=May 2, 2016|via=newspapers.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160602084859/https://www.newspapers.com/image/55018160/?terms=archibald%2Bcox%2Bjudicial%2Breform|archive-date=June 2, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> but the association ignored the plea in its legislative requests. Ultimately the bill failed in the Senate when the term ran out during a filibuster.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1978/1/5/senate-stops-cox-panels-court-reform/|last=Flowers|first=J. Christopher|title=Senate Stops Cox Panel's Court Reform|work=Harvard Crimson|date=January 5, 1978|access-date=May 2, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160701185617/http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1978/1/5/senate-stops-cox-panels-court-reform/|archive-date=July 1, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>}} In the next session the bill was drastically revised,<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.barjournals/malr0063&start_page=101&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults#&id=101|last=Hennessey|first=Edward F.|title=Annual Report of the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: The State of the Judiciary|journal=Massachusetts Law Review|volume=63|number=3|date=June 1978|pages=101–107, 101–103|access-date=May 2, 2016|via=[[Heinonline.org]]|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160605123424/http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.barjournals%2Fmalr0063&start_page=101&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults#&id=101|archive-date=June 5, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> but ultimately retained the state take-over of funding and implemented some centralization and coordination.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.barjournals/malr0064&start_page=3&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=1&men_tab=srchresults&id=7|last=Hennessey|first=Edward F.|title=Third Annual Report of the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: The State of the Judiciary|journal=Massachusetts Law Review|volume=64|number=1|date=February 1979|pages=3, 8–9|access-date=May 2, 2016|via=[[Heinonline.org]]|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160605123006/http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.barjournals%2Fmalr0064&start_page=3&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=1&men_tab=srchresults&id=7|archive-date=June 5, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>