BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
Version: May 18, 2016
Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
ME
SUBJECT
Allocation of vacant judgeships
DESCRIPTION
Existing law authorizes 50 additional judges, upon appropriation
by the Legislature, to be allocated to various county superior
courts, pursuant to uniform criteria approved by the Judicial
Council of California. This bill would require that up to five
vacant judgeships be allocated from superior courts with more
authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need to
superior courts with fewer authorized judgeships than their
assessed judicial need. This bill would also require that the
allocation of vacant judgeships be in accordance with a
methodology approved by the Judicial Council, as specified.
BACKGROUND
This Committee is the author of Senate Bill 1023, a bill that
would appropriate $5 million from the General Fund for the
purpose of funding 12 of the 50 previously authorized superior
court judgeships and accompanying staff, and require the
Judicial Council to determine the allocation of the funded
judgeships pursuant to uniform criteria.<1> SB 1023 was held on
suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee this year. Last
year, the Governor vetoed SB 229 (Roth, 2015), a bill that was
identical to SB 1023. In his veto message the Governor stated
that he intended to work with the Judicial Council to develop a
system wide approach to balance the workload and the
distribution of judgeships around the state. As part of this
year's budget, the Governor proposed a budget trailer bill to
reallocate two vacant judgeships each from the counties of Santa
---------------------------
<1> AB 159 (Jones, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007), authorized
the creation of 50 judgeships to be filled but did not fund
them.
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageB of?
Clara and Alameda and transfer two judgeships each to the
counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. The Governor's
proposal was not part of the final Budget.
According to the Judicial Council's November 2014 report, "Based
on the 2014 Judicial Needs Assessment, 35 courts need new
judgeships, for a total need of 269.8 [(full-time equivalent
judicial positions)]. This is nearly 14 percent higher than the
1,963.3 authorized and funded judicial positions. The need
estimate does not include judicial vacancies resulting from
retirement, elevations, or other changes, that have not yet been
filled." (Jud. Council of Cal., Rep. on the 2014 Update of
Judicial Needs Assessment (Nov. 2014) pp. 1, 3.)
This bill is the latest in a series of bills to attempt to
increase the number of judgeships in the superior courts that
have the most need. This bill would require that up to five
vacant judgeships be allocated from superior courts with more
authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need to
superior courts with fewer authorized judgeships than their
assessed judicial need. This bill would also require that the
allocation of vacant judgeships be in accordance with a
methodology approved by the Judicial Council, as specified.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the
number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of
each superior court. (Cal. Const., art. VI, Sec. 4.)
Existing law specifies the number of superior court judges in
each of the 58 counties. (Gov. Code Secs. 69580-69611.)
Existing law establishes that in the County of:
Alameda there are 69 judges. (Gov. Code Sec. 69580.)
Santa Clara there are 79 judges. (Gov. Code Sec. 69600.)
Riverside there are 49 judges. (Gov. Code Sec. 69592.)
San Bernardino there are 63 judges of the superior
court. (Gov. Code Sec. 69594.)
Existing law authorizes 50 additional superior Court judges to
be allocated to the various superior courts pursuant to uniform
criteria adopted by the Judicial Council, upon appropriation in
the 2007-08 fiscal year. Existing law requires that the uniform
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageC of?
criteria for determining additional judicial need take into
account the following: (1) court filings data averaged over a
three-year period; (2) workload standards that represent the
average amount of time of bench and non-bench work required to
resolve each case type; and (3) a ranking methodology that
provides consideration for courts that have the greatest need
relative to their current complement of judicial officers. (Gov.
Code Secs. 69614, 69614.2.)
Existing law specifies the composition and duties of the
Judicial Council (Council), requires judges to report to the
Council as the Chief Justice directs concerning the condition of
judicial business in their courts, requires judges to cooperate
with the Council and hold court as assigned, and specifies that
the Chief Justice:
shall seek to expedite judicial business and to equalize the
work of judges;
may provide for the assignment of any judge to another court
but only with the judge's consent if the court is of lower
jurisdiction.
may assign a retired judge who consents to any court. (Cal.
Const., art. VI, Sec. 6.)
Existing law specifies the process for electing superior court
Judges, and for their appointment by the Governor. (Cal.
Const., art. VI, Sec. 16.)
This bill would state that is the intent of the Legislature that
this act shall not be construed to limit the authority of:
the Legislature to create and fund new judgeships pursuant to
Section 4 of Article VI of the California Constitution;
the Governor to appoint a person to fill a vacancy pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 16 of Article VI of the California
Constitution; or
the Chief Justice of California to assign judges pursuant to
subdivision (e) of Section 6 of Article VI of the California
Constitution.
This bill would require that up to five vacant judgeships be
allocated from superior courts with more authorized judgeships
than their assessed judicial need to superior courts with fewer
authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need to
provide for a more equitable distribution of judgeships and upon
notice to the applicable courts.
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageD of?
This bill would require that the allocation of vacant judgeships
be in accordance with a methodology approved by the Judicial
Council after solicitation of public comments, and that the
determination of a superior court's assessed judicial need be in
accordance with the uniform standards for factually determining
additional judicial need in each county, as updated and approved
by the Judicial Council, pursuant to the Update of Judicial
Needs Study, based on the criteria set forth in subdivision (b)
of Section 69614.
This bill would provide that if a judgeship in a superior court
becomes vacant, the Judicial Council shall determine whether the
judgeship is eligible for allocation to another superior court
under the methodology, standards, and criteria described above,
and if the judgeship is eligible for allocation to another
superior court, the Judicial Council must promptly notify the
applicable courts, the Legislature, and the Governor that the
judgeship vacated in one court shall be allocated to another
court.
This bill would specify that a judgeship becomes "vacant" when
an incumbent judge relinquishes the office through resignation,
retirement, death, removal, or confirmation to an appellate
court judgeship during either of the following:
at any time before the deadline to file a declaration of
intention to become a candidate for a judicial office, as
specified; or
after the deadline to file a declaration of intention to
become a candidate for a judicial office if no candidate
submits qualifying nomination papers by the deadline.
This bill would provide that a judgeship shall not become
"vacant" when an incumbent judge relinquishes the office as a
result of being defeated in an election for that office.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for this bill
According to the author:
In August 2001, the Judicial Council approved a statewide
methodology for determining the number of trial court
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageE of?
judges needed based on workload standards developed by the
National Center for State Courts. When it created and
funded the first set of 50 new judgeships in 2006, the
Legislature directed that new judgeships would be
allocated according to the assessed judicial need and
prioritization methodology approved by the council.
In addition, Government Code section 69614(c)(1) required
that the council report by November 1 of every even
numbered year "on the factually determined need for new
judgeships in each superior court using the uniform
criteria for allocation of judgeships" established in the
judicial workload model. These biennial reports show that
the statewide need for judicial officers has remained
consistently greater than the number of authorized
judicial positions.
The most recent Judicial Needs Assessment Report (2014)
shows an overall shortage of 270 judges statewide. The
report also demonstrates that there is an uneven statewide
distribution of judgeships and some courts have
proportionately fewer judges than others to handle their
workload. For example, the trial courts in Riverside and
San Bernardino have only 60 percent of the judicial
officers they need. But the trial courts in Alameda and
Santa Clara have more judges than necessary to handle
their assessed needs, 14 and 19 more judicial officers,
respectively. Currently, Alameda has three vacant
judgeships and Santa Clara has two.
Presently, no mechanism is available to transfer vacant
judgeships from one court to another. Courts with fewer
judges than their assessed needs have had to spread their
workload among their existing authorized judicial
officers, which has created a backlog and limits the time
that a judge can spend on each case, particularly for
family law and civil cases.
Governor Brown has been reluctant to fund new judgeships
until action is taken to distribute judge positions based
on workload needs. In his veto message for SB 229 (Roth
2015), which would have appropriated $5 million from the
General Fund to fund 12 of the second set of 50 authorized
judgeships, Governor Brown stated a desire to "work with
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageF of?
the Judicial Council to develop a more system-wide
approach to balance the workload and the distribution of
judgeships around the state" before funding any new
positions.
2. Opposition
In opposition, the California Federation of Interpreters writes
that "this bill further intensifies the growing atmosphere of
instability among our courts as underfunded courts are forced to
compete for resources against other underfunded courts."
Writing in opposition, a coalition of Labor Unions and the
California Labor Federation note:
There are indeed courts throughout California which have
too few judges. These courts also have too few employees
who are critical to the processing and expediting of
justice in California. Every single court in California
is underfunded and to take resources from one underfunded
and understaffed court and give to another is extremely
shortsighted and pits one trial court against another.
Our members know all too well about the ongoing shortage
of funds in the judicial branch and the funding
methodology referred to as the WAFM model which has
created an atmosphere of instability and competition for
dollars among the trial courts. The WAFM model
essentially takes resources from one underfunded court and
gives them to another more underfunded court. AB 2341
would only exacerbate the current funding instability
among the trial courts.
A more honest and fair approach to resolving the problem
of severely understaffed and under-resourced courts is to
provide funding equalization dollars to bring those courts
up to an appropriate level of operation, as well as to
provide dedicated dollars for courts with severe shortages
in judgeships versus robbing Peter to pay Paul.
3. Superior court judge shortage throughout California
Under existing law, the Judicial Council is required to report
to the Legislature on or before November 1st of every
even-numbered year on the need for new judgeships in each
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageG of?
superior court. The most recent report, The Need for New
Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2014 Update of the Judicial
Needs Assessment, found that a critical need for new judgeships
remains and that nearly 270 new judgeships are needed to meet
the workload-based need in the trial courts. The report
asserted that: "The public's right to timely access to justice
is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every
jurisdiction. The number of judgeships authorized and funded by
the Legislature has not kept pace with workload, leaving many
courts with serious shortfalls -as high as nearly 70 percent -
between the number of judgeships needed and the number that have
been authorized and filled." (Jud. Council of Cal., Rep. on the
Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2014 Update of
the Judicial Needs Assessment (Dec. 2014) p. 3.) The report
further noted that:
Consistent with reports submitted in previous years, the
2014 Judicial Needs Assessment shows that there is a
critical shortage of judges relative to the workload needs
in California's trial courts. [The report] summarizes the
statewide judicial need compared to available resources
based on a three-year average of filings from fiscal years
2010 - 2011 through 2012 - 2013, showing that 2,171.3
[full-time equivalent judicial positions (FTEs)] are needed
statewide, compared to 1,963.3 FTE authorized and funded
positions. While Assembly Bil1 159 (Stats. 2007, Ch. 722)
authorized 50 new judgeships for the superior courts, those
positions have neither been funded nor filled. [The report]
shows the total assessed statewide need for judicial
officers has declined by 5 percent since the 2012 Judicial
Needs Assessment. Lower overall filings counts in recent
years account for the slight decline in statewide assessed
judicial need. (Id. at p. 4.)
In support of this bill, the Judicial Council of California
notes that this bill is intended to address the Governor's veto
message of SB 229 in 2015, where he wrote, "I am aware that the
need for judges in many courts is acute - Riverside and San
Bernardino are two clear examples. However, before funding any
new positions, I intend to work with the Judicial Council to
develop a more systemwide approach to balance the workload and
the distribution of judgeships around the state."
The Superior Court of California County of Riverside's Presiding
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageH of?
Judge, in support asserts that "[a]lthough I believe the better
approach would be to fund additional positions, Governor Brown
has made it clear that he believes there are sufficient funded
positions statewide but that there are perhaps too many in
certain counties and of course too few in Riverside and San
Bernardino."
In response to the continued need for additional judgeships, and
faced with the reality that the Legislature's recent attempts to
fund authorized judgeships have failed, this bill seeks to allow
the Judicial Council to move up to five vacant judgeships from
superior courts with more authorized judgeships than their
assessed judicial need to superior courts with fewer authorized
judgeships than their assessed judicial need.
4. The Legislature has the Constitutional authority to
prescribe the number of judges in each superior court
The California Constitution vests the Legislature with the duty
to "prescribe the number of judges and provide for the officers
and employees of each superior court." (Cal. Const., art. VI,
Sec. 4.) Opponents, the Alliance of California Judges, assert
that it would be "highly inappropriate and clearly
unconstitutional for the Legislature to provide [Judicial
Council]" with the authority to allocate vacant judgeships among
the superior courts of this state.
The Legislature has set the number of superior court judges in
each of the 58 counties. However, the legislature has also
authorized new superior court judgeships without specifying in
which particular counties those judges should be allocated. The
legislature has previously given the Judicial Council a role in
determining where new judicial positions would be located.
Indeed, current law authorizes 50 new superior court judgeships,
upon funding, and authorizes the allocation of the judgeships to
particular counties to be determined pursuant to uniform
criteria as updated and approved by the Judicial Council.
Existing law requires that the uniform criteria for determining
additional judicial need take into account the following: (1)
court filings data averaged over a three-year period; (2)
workload standards that represent the average amount of time of
bench and non-bench work required to resolve each case type; and
(3) a ranking methodology that provides consideration for courts
that have the greatest need relative to their current complement
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageI of?
of judicial officers.
The Committee has not been provided with any examples where the
Legislature has given the Judicial Council the authority to move
judgeships, whether vacant or filled, from one county to
another. The authority given to the Judicial Council to make
determinations regarding locations of judgeships has only been
given when new judgeships were created and funded.
If the Committee is inclined to allow up to five vacant
judgeships to be moved from one superior court to the another,
the Committee may wish to amend this bill to make clear which
vacant judgeships should be taken from one county and given to
another. Additionally, this Committee may wish to consider
amending the bill to ensure that no staff funding is removed
from the courts that would lose the vacant judgeships. The
Committee may wish also wish to seek an amendment to make clear
that the courts receiving vacant judgeships also receive funding
to adequately staff the new judges.
Support : Superior Court of California County of Riverside
Opposition : Alliance of California Judges; American Federation
of State County and Municipal Employees; California Federation
of Interpreters (CFI); California Labor Federation; California
Official Court Reporters Association; Laborers International
Union of North America, Locals 777 & 792; Orange County
Employees Association; San Diego County Court Employees
Association; San Luis Obispo County Employees Association;
Service Employees International Union; Teamsters;
HISTORY
Source : Judicial Council of California
Related Pending Legislation :
AB 2882 (Committee on Judiciary), among other things, would
authorize the Judicial Council to convert 10 subordinate
judicial officer positions to judgeships in the 2016-17 fiscal
AB 2341 (Obernolte)
PageJ of?
year when 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. This bill is in the
Senate Committee on Judiciary.
SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary) would appropriate $5 million
from the General Fund for the purpose of funding 12 of the 50
previously authorized superior court judgeships and accompanying
staff, and require the Judicial Council to determine the
allocation of the funded judgeships pursuant to uniform
criteria, as specified. This bill was held on suspense in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
Prior Legislation :
AB 1519 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 416, Stats. 2015), among
other things, authorized Judicial Council to convert 10
subordinate judicial officer positions, as specified.
SB 229 (Roth, 2015) See Background.
AB 159 (Jones, Ch. 722, Stats. 2007) See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 1)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 20, Noes 0)
Assembly Health Committee (Ayes 18, Noes 0)
**************