BILL ANALYSIS
SB 56
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 30, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
SB 56 (Dunn) - As Amended: August 29, 2006
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes additional superior court judgeships and
requires reporting on the diversity of judges and the applicant
pool for judgeships. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes 50 additional superior court judgeships-consistent
with partial funding for these positions provided in the
2006-07 Budget Act-to be allocated among the counties based on
specified criteria.
2)Requires the Judicial Council to report biennially on the need
for new judgeships using the same criteria.
3)Requires the Judicial Council, by November 1, 2007, to adopt
standards and measures for the fair and efficient
administration of justice and to report annually on these
measures.
4)Requires the State Bar to adopt procedures to facilitate
members' reporting of mandatory and voluntary information
online at the Bar's website.
5)Requires the following to occur by March 1 of each year:
a) The Governor shall disclose statewide demographic data
provided by all judicial applicants relative to ethnicity
and gender.
b) The State Bar shall release statewide demographic data,
relative to ethnicity and gender, of reviewed judicial
applicants and a similar statewide summary of the Bar's
recommendations regarding judicial applicants.
SB 56
Page 2
c) The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) shall
release demographic data relative to ethnicity and gender,
and by jurisdiction, as provided by all justices of the
Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal and all superior court
judges.
6)Stipulates that any data released per (5) shall be aggregate
statistical data and shall not identify to any individual
applicant, justice, or judge.
FISCAL EFFECT
Additional ongoing General Fund costs of about $33 million. The
2006-07 Budget Act provided about $3 million in ongoing funding
to cover one month's salary associated with the 50 judgeships
and $2.5 million in related one-time funding. According to the
AOC, the average cost for each new judgeship is about $720,000
annually, with variations by county depending on costs of
support staff and facility needs. This amount includes the
salary and benefits for a new judge, for 5 support staff and 1.1
bailiffs, and associated office space and operating expenses for
the judge and staff.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The Judicial Council reports that the state faces a
"judicial gap" that portends a number of disturbing long term
consequences: 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. According to the
Council, the number of trial court judges has not kept pace
with population growth and the resulting increased demand on
the courts. Between 1990 and 2000, California's population
grew by over 16%; yet the number of new judgeships created by
the Legislature grew by less than 3%. This imbalance is
demonstrated by the following examples provided by the Council
in support of this legislation:
a) In Butte County, between calendar 2002 and 2004,
felonies increased 22 percent, misdemeanors increased 8.6
percent, and juvenile dependency filings increased 40.2
percent.
b) In Kern County, since 1995, juvenile dependency cases
SB 56
Page 3
have increased 93 percent and overall juvenile filings have
increased 35 percent.
c) 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.
d) In Placer County, overall court filings increased 9.6
percent from 2003 to 2004.
e) 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.
Some of the consequences of this judicial gap, according to
the Council, include the following:
a) In June 2004, Riverside County suspended all civil
trials to address a backlog of criminal trials.
b) In Fresno County, 19.4 percent of civil cases that are
currently pending were filed prior to 2001.
c) In Sacramento County, civil litigants must wait up to 18
months for trial.
d) In San Bernardino County, each direct calendar judge has
875 cases pending trial, law and motion, or other hearings.
The Council asserts that passage of SB 56 will reduce court
backlogs, promote the speedy resolution of civil disputes,
increase public safety, and foster a stable environment for
state businesses.
1)The August 29 amendments , as reflected in Summary points 5 and
6 above, are intended to provide aggregate statistical data
about individuals available for consideration for judicial
appointment. Many observers of the state's judiciary have
expressed concern on the lack of appropriate representation of
women and persons of color.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081