¶1concurring specialty-
¶2[¶ 22] I agree with much of what the majority has written. I write separately to note my exception to the majority’s adoption and reliance, at ¶¶ 12-13, on the analysis of State v. Holmes, 106 Wis.2d 31, 315 N.W.2d 703, 716-17 (1982).
¶3[¶ 23] Provisions for change of judge, other than for actual good cause, are inherently procedural in nature. Here, the judiciary has acquiesced in the statutory provisions. The result would be different if the judiciary were to occupy the field by rule. See State v. Hanson, 558 N.W.2d 611 (N.D.1996).
¶4[¶ 24] DALE V. SANDSTROM