Identical bills to implement the Judicial Article were introduced in the House on May 25, 1975 and in the Senate on June 03, 1975. Both bills had a substantial number of sponsors: 72 for the House bill and 25 for the Senate bill.
House Bill 480 was first assigned to the Judiciary Committee for study and then to the Ways and Means Committee for fiscal review. The House Bill was later substituted for by Senate Bill 400 and this bill became the vehicle for further legislative action.
Senate Bill 400, or S. 400, was introduced on the 4th day of the 1975 Session of hte Legislature by Senator C.C. "Bo" Torbert, Senator Ronnie Flippo, and 23 other senators. Senator Torbert, who had been in the Legislature on and off since 1958, had been particularly active in matters relating to the courts. The bill was assigned to the Finance and Taxation Committee and reviewed by a sub-committee chaired by Senator Torbert. On September 9th, the bill received an unanimous favorable report from the Committee and was sent to the Senate for the second reading on the 25th Legislative Day. On September 16th, the 30th Legislative Day, the Senate gave final consideration to the bill. After a motion to postpone the bill was defeated, the Senate considered 24 amendments of which 4 came from the Finance and Taxation Committee and 6 from Senator Torbert. All of these passed as well as 6 others. The other 8 amendments were defeated. Since all of the amendments were either technical or corrective, there was no major challenge to the substance of the bill. The Senate passed the bill on a 31-0 vote.
The next day, the House of Representatives received S. 400. S. 400 was assigned to the Ways and Means Committee and replaced House Bill, or H.B., 480 in the House's consideration of the implementation act. Ways and Means reported the bill favorably, with amendments, on the 35th Legislative Day. On the last Legislative Day, S. 400 was considered by the full House. 33 amendments and 1 substitute were offered. 23 of which came from the Ways and Means Committee. The amendments were adopted in the House on a 100-1 vote. The Senate occurred and the bill became Act No. 1205, The Judicial Implementation Act.
In the adoption of both the Judicial Article and the Implementation Act, the issue of cost came up numerous times. Before unification, funding for the operation of the state courts was decentralized and no one really knew how much it would cost to adequately fund and operate a centralized and unified state court system. During the passage of the Judicial Article and the Implementation Act, the Legislature was assured many times that court revenues would be sufficient to self-fund the system. After the fact, in 1977, this issue became the first crisis to face the new judicial system.