BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
SB 56 S
Senator Dunn B
As Amended April 18, 2005
Hearing Date: April 26, 2005 5
Government Code 6
GWW
SUBJECT
New and Converted Judicial Positions
DESCRIPTION
This bill would, upon legislative appropriation, authorize
50 new superior court judgeships for each of the next
three fiscal years. Placement of the new positions would
be determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform
criteria for determining the need for additional trial
court judges.
The bill would also, upon legislative appropriation,
permit the conversion of up to 161 existing subordinate
judicial officer (SJO) positions to judgeships in eligible
superior courts upon a vacancy of a SJO position.
Eligibility for conversion would be determined by the
Judicial Council pursuant to uniform criteria for
determining the need for converting SJO positions to
judgeships. The Governor may fill by appointment the new
vacant judicial position. Candidates for appointment would
be subject to review by the State Bar's Commission on
Judicial Nominees Evaluation.
BACKGROUND
According to the Judicial Council's September 2004 fact
sheet on the California Judicial Branch, there are 1,498
authorized superior court judges positions and another
(more)
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 2
414.6 (in terms of full-time equivalents) commissioners
and referees, for a total of 1,915 "Authorized Judicial
Positions (AJPs)." Judicial Council, however, points that
current workloads require the services of 2,270 "Judicial
Position Equivalents (JPEs), which include the AJPs plus
the services of assigned judges, temporary judges, and
temporary commissioners and referees.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , Article VI, Section 4 of the California
Constitution provides that the Legislature shall prescribe
the number of judges and provide for the officers and
employees of each superior court.
Existing law , Article VI, Section 22, provides that the
Legislature may provide for a court's appointment of
officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate
judicial duties.
This bill would, upon appropriation of the Legislature,
create an additional 150 superior court judges to be
appointed by the Governor in the 2005-06, 2006-07, and
2007-08 fiscal years, to the various counties as
determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform
criteria.
The bill would also authorize up to 161 subordinate
judicial officer positions in eligible superior courts, as
determined by the Judicial Council, to be converted to
judgeships, according to uniform specified criteria and
upon appropriation by the Legislature. The bill would
declare the Legislature's intent in enacting this
provision to restore an appropriate balance between
subordinate judicial officers and judges and to ensure
that critical case types can be heard by judges.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for 150 new judgeships
According to the Judicial Council (JC), sponsor of SB
56, California faces a "judicial gap" which must be
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 3
bridged in order to avoid serious and far-reaching
ramifications, including a significant decrease in
Californians' access to the courts; compromised public
safety; an unstable business environment; and, in some
courts, enormous backlogs that inhibit fair, timely, and
equitable justice. The Judicial Council writes:
Access to courts is fundamentally compromised by
judicial shortages. Every citizen is
constitutionally entitled to impartial and timely
dispute resolution through the courts. With a
judicial gap, civil proceedings and family law
hearings are routinely rescheduled, with courts
reporting delays of up to 18 months from filing to
trial. This culture of continuation keeps parents,
children, victims, and defendants in limbo. In the
face of these delays, an unknown number of citizens
simply decide that the court has no time for their
problems.
The public is endangered when there are too few
judicial officers to hear criminal cases.
Significant backlogs in criminal cases have serious
repercussions. County jails have had to release
inmates early as a result of overcrowding cause by
multi-months delays in processing criminal
commitments. Heavy caseloads force liberal
plea-bargains that favor criminal defendants, because
criminal cases must be dismissed if they are not
heard within specified time frames. Delays occur in
both the issuing and recalling of bench and arrest
warrants.
Criminal cases must be heard within 90 days of filing
and thus take priority over all other legal matters.
As a result, civil justice suffers, creating
uncertainty in the business community-which cannot
rely on timely resolution of contract disputes.
This judicial gap arises, asserts Judicial Council,
because trial court judicial positions have not kept
pace with population growth, which in turn fuels
additional court filings and court workload. JC points
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 4
out that between 1990 and 2000, California's population
grew by over 16 percent while the number of new
judgeships created by the Legislature grew less than
three percent. (The JC points out elsewhere in its
briefing paper that the creation of SJO positions to
serve as temporary judges increased significantly
between 1989 and 2005 to compensate for the absence of
new judgeships.) This imbalance is demonstrated by the
following examples in JC's briefing paper:
In Butte County, between calendar years 2002 and
2004, felonies increased 22 percent, misdemeanors
increased 8.6 percent, and juvenile dependency
filings increased 40.2 percent.
In Kern County, since 1995, juvenile dependency
cases have increased 93 percent and overall juvenile
filings have increased 35 percent.
In Kings County, since 2001, felonies have
increased 71 percent, juvenile delinquency cases have
increased 4.5 percent, and writ filings have
increased 32.5 percent.
In Placer County, overall court filings increased
9.6 percent from 2003 to 2004.
In Riverside County, in fiscal year 2003-2004,
felony filings increased 5.2 percent and traffic
filings increased 5.7 percent. There has also been a
9 percent increase in new family law and domestic
violence cases in the past 5 years.
The briefing paper cites several other examples of
counties facing additional workload due to increases in
felony filings, traffic misdemeanors and infractions,
family law, juvenile delinquency or dependency filings,
and domestic violence cases.
Consequences of the judicial gap include:
In June 2004, Riverside County suspended all civil
trials to address a backlog of criminal trials.
In Fresno County, 19.4 percent of civil cases that
are currently pending were filed prior to 2001.
In Sacramento County, civil litigants must wait up
to 18 months for trial.
In San Bernardino County, each direct calendar
judge has 875 cases pending trial, law and motion, or
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 5
other hearings.
The Judicial Council asserts that passage of SB 56 would
reduce overwhelming backlogs, promote the speedy
resolution of civil disputes, increase public safety,
and foster a stable environment for state businesses.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George stated in his State of
the Judiciary address:
Related to the need to provide a qualitatively
adequate judiciary is the need to ensure a
quantitatively adequate judiciary. We have
documented the need for additional [judgeships] to
enable the courts to promptly handle the
ever-increasing workload they face ? The need is
there, it is documented, and it has not been
disputed. Having a sufficient number of judges
available to respond to cases filed by Californians
and their public and private agencies is a crucial
component of access to justice.
In closing, the Judicial Council points that their needs
assessments actually identified a statewide need for 355
new trial court judgeships. (Comment 3 discusses the
methodology and assumptions used in computing the need.)
However, in consideration of the state's ongoing fiscal
crisis, the JC is requesting only the most critically
needed 150 new judgeships over the next three years.
(The additional proposed conversion of up to 161 SJO
positions would not count towards filling the needed 355
because the Assessment Project did not differentiate
between judges and SJOs-both were counted as appointed
judicial positions. Thus, converting a SJO position to
a judgeship does not change a court's existing resources
or its need for additional judicial resources.)
2. Projected costs of new judgeships
According to Judicial Council, the average ongoing cost
for a new judgeship is estimated to be $755,000
annually, which would vary by court depending on costs
of support staff and individual court facility needs.
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 6
This cost estimate includes the salary and benefits for
a new judge ($172,000), salary and benefits for 5
support staff and 1.1 bailiffs ($389,000), and office
space, operating expenses and equipment (including
facilities and court security costs) for the judge and
staff ($193,000).
Judicial Council estimates the first year costs of this
bill at $3 million, based upon its assumption that the
Governor will not make the appointments until June 1 of
next year. This may be a reasonable assumption, given
the condition in SB 56 that the judgeships are created
only upon appropriation by the Legislature. The full
year cost for 50 positions averages about $37 million
annually for each group of 50 judges.
Within the $37 million estimate is the estimated
facilities cost of an averaged $3.5 million for each
group of 50 new judgeships. Because most (15 of 50) of
the first group can be housed by existing facilities,
the annual additional facilities cost for the first 50
is "only" $2.267 million. However, costs escalate to an
annual $3.646 million for the second group of 50 (29 of
50 will need leased space) and to $4.652 million for the
third group (37 of 50 will need leased space). These
estimates are based on the assumption that the new
positions will be housed in leased space until new or
renovated facilities are built. Building costs for
permanent space will be much more expensive.
3. New judgeships will be allocated pursuant to uniform
criteria for determining the need for additional judges
SB 56 would provide for the appointment of the new
judgeships by the Governor "to the various county
superior courts, as determined by the Judicial Council
pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need
for additional superior court judges."
The sponsor's staff writes that "[t]he uniform criteria
for determining the number of judgeships needed are the
caseload weights established by the California Judicial
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 7
Workload Assessment study conducted by the National
Center for State Courts. For each of 18 different case
types the study measured the amount of time that judges
spend on these cases including the amounts of time spent
in pretrial, trial, and post-judgment phases of case
processing. Because different types of filings require
different amounts of work it was necessary to conduct a
time study to determine how much time different cases
required?. The workload study established how much time
required (sic) on average for different case types."
The JC staff further explains, "[o]nce the number of
judgeships needed in each court has been calculated
based on the judicial workload standards (the 18 case
weights), the courts are ranked initially according to
the absolute number of judges needed. This rank order
is then adjusted to reflect the relative need of each
court, which considers the absolute number of judges
needed in relation to the total number of judgeships in
each court?. The absolute and relative needs of each
court combined give rise to a final, composite need
indicator, which determines the priority for allocating
new judgeships."
The JC's recent 2004 assessment of judicial need was
built upon an earlier 2001 statewide assessment of
judicial needs, which was based on the following
assumptions:
Judicial officers have available, on average, 215
days per year for case resolution, which was reached
by removing weekends and applying a standard
deduction for vacation, sick leave, and participation
in judicial conference and education programs from
the calendar year.
California judicial officers are assumed to spend
an average of six hours a day on case specific
responsibilities and two hours per day on non-case
related administration, community activities, travel,
etc.
(October 26, 2001 Report to Judicial Council,
"Results of statewide assessment of judicial needs
including list of recommended new judgeships," at p.
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 8
3.)
Based on these assumptions, the 2001 report estimated a
need for an additional 365 judicial positions, a 19.2
percent increase from the then 1,905 Authorized Judicial
Positions (AJP) to a 2,270 judicial positions. (As
noted above, an AJP covers an authorized judge,
commissioner or referee position.)
The 2004 report projects a need of 355 new judicial
positions, based upon the same assumptions, which is an
18.5 percent increase. The reduction from 365 needed
positions in 2001 to the 355 needed positions in 2004
reflects the increase of 10 new AJPs between 2001 and
2004.
Committee staff admits frank surprise at the assumptions
used to establish the need for added judicial positions.
Perhaps the Council's 2001 report did not completely
state all the assumptions. But if it did, the
extrapolated numbers do not paint a totally sympathetic
picture. Applying the assumptions, judges apparently
spend 8 hours a day on their jobs, with no overtime and
weekends. They commit 6 hours of 215 work days or 1,290
hours in a year to case resolution. They commit another
2 hours a day of 215 work days or 430 hours a year to
administration, travel and community activities. An
unstated number of days is also spent on judicial
conferences and education, but is likely to be around 10
days if the following calculation is correct in its
assumptions: 365 days minus 13 court holidays, minus
102 weekend days, minus 15 days vacation, and minus 10
days for sick leave.
Quantitatively, if the current judicial officers were to
work a 48-hour week instead of a 40-hour week, that 20
percent increase in work time would take care of the
need to increase the number of AJPs by 18.5 percent.
However, committee staff also recognizes that asking
judicial officers to sacrifice may be unfair when many
of them have already taken a significant pay cut from
their private firms or practice to accept a judicial
appointment. Moreover, this simplistic approach would
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 9
not address the need in counties such as Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Joaquin, Merced, Fresno and Sacramento
where extreme population growth has far outpaced the
ability of the local judges and commissioners to just
work a little harder.
4. Stated need for converting up to 161 SJO positions to
judgeships
According to Judicial Council, because of the lack of
authorization for new judgeships since FY 1988-1989, the
court system has had to address its workload issues by
appointing commissioners and referees to act as
temporary judges. However, this "fix" is not acceptable
as a long term solution. Overreliance on SJOs has
resulted in many critical court proceedings being heard
by judicial officers who are not accountable to the
public. Statewide, SJOs typically spend an average of
55 percent of their time serving as temporary judges; in
large courts the proportion is 75 to 80 percent.
Judicial Council asserts that many SJOs in practice are
de facto judges, but without the elections, authority,
independence, and protections the Constitutions
provides.
In theory, SJOs are appointed to perform "subordinate
judicial duties," such as hearing small claims cases,
traffic infractions, and certain civil discovery issues.
In practice, however, many SJOs act as temporary judges
and hear misdemeanor and felony cases, family law
matters, and civil cases, limited and unlimited, upon
stipulation of the parties. Judicial Council reports
that where parties have refused to stipulate to the use
of an SJO, cases must be recalendared, thus adding to
court congestion.
Judicial Council asserts that converting SJO positions
to judgeships would enable courts to make better use of
judicial resources and assign judges, rather than SJOs,
to perform judicial work.
5. Costs of conversion
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 10
SJOs are usually paid at 85% of the salary of a superior
court judge, and conversion of an SJO position to a
judgeship would increase the pay for that new position.
Superior court judges are paid about $140,000. Judges
may also get additional benefits that are not provided
to an SJO. No cost estimates have been provided by
Judicial Council; however, any conversion of positions
would be contingent upon legislative appropriation.
6. Converted judgeships will be allocated pursuant to a
uniform criteria for determining the need to convert SJO
position to judgeship
SB 56 would provide for the conversion of up to 161 SJO
positions in "eligible superior courts, as determined by
the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform criteria for
determining the need for converting existing subordinate
judicial officer positions to judgeships."
According to the Judicial Council, "[t]he criteria to be
applied ? in determining whether a county has eligible
positions is whether, using the judgeship needs criteria
under subdivision (d) of section 69613, the workload of
all subordinate judicial officers in the county that
constitutes the performance of non-subordinate judicial
officer duties is at least the workload of more than
one-half the workload of a judicial officer."
However, Section 69613 does not yet have a subdivision
(d) as that language is still under discussion.
According to the author's office, the author is willing
to work with the Judicial Council and any interested
member on fine-tuning any necessary language that might
be needed to clarify and implement the uniform criteria
for determining the needs for additional judgeships and
for determining the eligible counties in which existing
SJO positions would be converted to a judgeship upon a
vacancy that that SJO position.
7. Reduced court filings do not tell the entire picture,
asserts Judicial Council
According to the Judicial Council's 2004 Court
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 11
Statistics Report, "Statewide Caseload Trends, 1993-1994
through 2002-2003," total civil filings fell from
1,737,323 in FY 1993-94 to 1,501,471 in FY 2002-2003.
Total criminal filings decreased, from 7,258,858 in FY
1993-94 to 6,673,070 in FY 2001-2002, the last year with
complete reports. Felony filings went up and down
during the period, with 247,589 in FY 93-94, to 260,311
in 1997-98, to 237,799 in FY 2000-2001, to 246,034 in FY
2002-21003. Total non-traffic misdemeanor filings also
dropped substantially during that period, as did total
traffic misdemeanors. The filing of infractions dropped
about 10 percent during that period, from 5,188,243 in
1993-93 to 4,673,131 in 2002-03.
Table 2 on page 46 of the Report, "Filings per Judicial
Position and Dispositions per Judicial Position
Equivalent" paint a similar picture. Total filings with
the superior courts reduced from 9,175,646 in FY 1993-94
to 8,395,432 in FY 2001-2002, the last year with
complete reports. While appointed judicial positions
(AJP) as well as judicial position equivalents (JPE)
increased during that period from 1,795 to 1,919, the
number of filings per AJP decreased from 5,112 in FY
1993-94 to 4,376 in FY 2001-02. Dispositions also
decreased from 4,484 per JPE in FY 1993-94 to 3,825 in
FY 2001-02.
The Judicial Council responds that for an accurate
understanding of judicial workload, filings must be
considered together with an analysis of case types. For
example, although family and juvenile law cases
represent only 3.5 percent of total filings, they
account for nearly one-third of the trial courts'
judicial workload based on workload standards adopted by
the Judicial Council. (Family law-marital filings
dropped from 167,956 in FY 1993-94 to 148,511 in FY
2002-03. Other family law petitions, including
Department of Child Support Services complaints to
establish a parental relationship, rose from 292,816 in
FY 1993-94 to 302,569 in FY 2002-03.) Conversely,
Judicial Council notes, infraction filings make up
almost two-thirds of total court filings, but represent
only 3 percent of the judicial overall workload.
SB 56 (Dunn)
Page 12
Further, litigants who appear without counsel, which
involve a majority of the filings, pose a key workload
issue for the courts.
Support: California District Attorneys Ass'n.;
Opposition:None Known
HISTORY
Source:Judicial Council of California
Related Pending Legislation:None Known
Prior Legislation:AB 1698 (Assembly Judiciary Com.) of
2002 would have authorized the conversion
of up to 250 SJO positions, but no more
than 10 per year, died without hearing in
Committee
**************