BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 126 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 11, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 126 (Davis) - As Amended: April 4, 2011 Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-2 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill, as proposed to be amended , attempts to create greater transparency in the process of judicial selection and evaluation. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires each member of the designated agency of the State Bar responsible for evaluating judicial candidates to complete a minimum of two hours of training annually in the areas of fairness and bias in the judicial appointments process. 2)Requires the governor to post on his or her official website the names of all persons, except employees of the governor, for whom the governor or his or her representatives have provided judicial application materials on candidate(s) for judicial office for purposes of determining whether: a) The application should be submitted to the State Bar for evaluation, or b) The candidate should be appointed following evaluation by the State Bar. 3)Requires the State Bar and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), with respect to statewide demographic data on all judicial applicants and on justices and judges, to use specified ethnic and racial categories, as defined for the 2010 U.S. Census. FISCAL EFFECT Minor absorbable ongoing costs for the Governor's Office to make the required disclosures on its website. AB 126 Page 2 COMMENTS 1)Purpose . This bill seeks to address the historical lack of transparency in key aspects of California's judicial selection and evaluation process. The author contends the bill will help with the effort the Legislature and governor are currently making to address the continuing lack of sufficient ethnic, racial and gender diversity in the state's judicial branch. The bill is supported by the California State Conference of the NAACP and the California Public Defenders Association. 2)Prior Legislation . This bill is substantially similar to AB 2095 (Davis) of 2008, which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who stated: "Having a diverse and qualified judiciary that can effectively serve all Californians is a goal I continue to work towards. Our hard work is reflected in the increased number of diverse judicial applicants. My appointments, of which over 23% to date are ethnic minorities, exceeds the percentages of ethnic minority applicants? I receive information from a myriad of sources, and ? Ýt]he people this bill seeks to identify perform an advisory role only and a final decision about who advances in the process is exercised exclusively by the Judicial Appointments Secretary, acting on my behalf. Therefore, any contrary characterization does a disservice to the public? ÝThis bill] would impair the availability of impartial information about prospective judicial candidates, have a chilling effect upon people willing to provide candid information, and would subject individuals to political lobbying from various sources. Ultimately, this bill would hinder my ability to most effectively carry out my constitutionally-mandated duty." 3)Amendments are clarifying and simply list the specific ethnic and racial categories are currently used by the AOC to collect demographic data and are consistent with the 2010 census. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 AB 126 Page 3