BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 405 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 405 (Corbett) As Introduced February 16, 2011 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :26-12 JUDICIARY 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |Huber, Huffman, Monning, | |Bradford, Charles | | |Wieckowski | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | | | |Mitchell, Solorio | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Wagner, Beth Gaines, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |Jones | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Seeks to ratify an additional 10 subordinate judicial officer (SJO) conversions to judgeships pursuant to AB 2763 (Feuer), Chapter 690, Statutes of 2010, to help address ongoing shortages of juvenile and family law judicial officers. Specifically, this bill : 1)Ratifies the authority of the Judicial Council to convert 10 SJO positions into judgeships in the 2011-12 fiscal year. 2)Provides that the conversion must result in a judge being assigned to a family or juvenile law department previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer. 3)Provides that this conversion shall be in addition to any action taken under existing law to convert up to 16 SJO positions per fiscal year to judgeships. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of each superior court. Under existing law, the Legislature may SB 405 Page 2 provide for the trial courts to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties. Existing law also authorizes the courts to appoint SJOs, and sets forth their duties and titles. 2)Permits the conversion of as many as 162 SJO positions into judgeships in eligible courts, not to exceed 16 conversions each fiscal year, based on specified criteria developed by the Judicial Council. 3)Authorizes the Judicial Council to also convert annually, in eligible superior courts, up to 10 additional SJO positions to judgeships, upon vacancy, where the conversions will result in a judge being assigned to a family or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by an SJO. Existing law requires that these conversions must be ratified by the Legislature by statutory enactment other than the annual Budget Act. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations, annual cost of up to $270,000 for conversion of up to 10 SJOs to judgeships. For each conversion of an SJO position to a judgeship, the additional annual cost, based on salary differences between the two positions, is approximately $27,000. The Judicial Council indicates that these additional costs will be funded through a reallocation of monies in the Trial Court Trust Fund. COMMENTS : This non-controversial bill seeks to ratify the conversion of ten SJO positions to judgeships for juvenile and family law positions. The author notes: Seeking to improve the handling of family and juvenile law cases by increasing the likelihood that these matters are presided over by judges and not subordinate judicial officers, SB 405 (Corbett) ratifies the authority of the Judicial Council to convert 10 subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in the 2011-12 fiscal year where the conversion will result in a judge being assigned to a family law or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer. For the past four years since the conversions of SJO positions began, more than 16 SJO vacancies SB 405 Page 3 occurred in courts eligible for conversion of these positions to judgeships. The annual cap of 16 conversions in each fiscal year has resulted in courts either keeping the vacancy for an extended period, impacting the ability to serve the public, or filling the vacant position with a new SJO, impacting the ability to convert positions consistent with the stated intent of the Legislature that these positions be converted to judgeships in order to ensure that critical case types, including family, probate, and juvenile law matters, can be heard by judges. While the cases coming before the Judicial Branch have increased as a result of population growth, trial court judgeships have not kept pace with demand. Authorized trial courts judgeships have grown by 8.5 percent while the population in California has grown by more than 33 percent. Family law and juvenile law cases are among the courts' most sensitive and often most complex cases. In a 2010 report the Judicial Council analyzed the need for more judges in California's courts. The Council compared the amount of judges necessary for court operation with the amount of judicial positions currently authorized and funded and determined, "Ýt]he total statewide need for judicial officers is currently equivalent to 2,352 positions. Including 50 statutorily authorized but not yet funded and therefore unfilled judicial positions, the number of authorized judicial positions is currently 2,022. Thus, the net need for new judgeships is 330 or, as a percentage of the total need, the judicial branch has a 14 percent shortfall." In order to remedy the shortfall the Legislature has authorized 100 new judges since 2006. However, because of budget constraints only 50 of the judges have been funded. In 2007 the Legislature passed AB 159 (Jones), Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007, which authorized the conversion of 162 SJO positions into judgeships at the rate of 16 per year, subject to annual Legislative authorization. All 16 positions have been authorized every year since 2007. Despite adding 114 judges to the bench since 2007 (an increase of 8.5%), the Judicial Council SB 405 Page 4 notes these increases are failing to keep pace with population growth (population grew 33% over the same time period). Until the rate of new judges meets the rate of population growth (and accompanying increase in litigation) the state court will continue to see its work load per judge grow and the judicial process continue to slow. While not eliminating the problem, the author notes that this bill will increase the amount of judges on the bench and lessen some of the backlog in the family and juvenile departments of the Superior Court. According to the Judicial Council, SJOs were originally created to assist the courts with needs for judicial-like functions when new judgeships were pending and not yet authorized. SJOs, unlike judges, are appointed by county courts and are not directly accountable to the public through the electoral process. Nonetheless, in recent years as caseloads increased without a corresponding increase in sitting judges, the SJO's role has grown. Between 1989 and 1999 the number of SJOs increased 60%while the number of judges on the bench grew 1% . To address the chronic shortage in sitting judges, Superior Courts began appointing SJOs as temporary judges and allowed them to handle core judicial duties. SJOs now handle an array of cases from complex litigation to family law. By converting SJOs to full judgeships the state can ensure that more judicial officers, especially those in the sensitive family and juvenile justice departments, are full time judges. This bill ratifies the Judicial Council's authority to convert 10 SJO positions in the fiscal year 2011-12 so long as the conversion "will result in a judge being assigned to a family law or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer." Given the detailed language, any SJO position converted into a judgeship should stay in family or juvenile court. Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002188 SB 405 Page 5