BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2341 (Obernolte) - Allocation of vacant judgeships
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: May 18, 2016 |Policy Vote: JUD. 6 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 2341 would authorize up to five vacant judgeships
to be reallocated to superior courts with fewer authorized
judgeships than their assessed judicial need, as specified.
Fiscal
Impact: Major future cost pressure of about $6.5 million
(General Fund) annually to fund up to five judgeships and the
required complement of staff sooner than otherwise would occur
under the existing allocation of these positions to courts with
more judgeships than their assessed judicial need. The one-time
facilities and overhead costs to establish a new judgeship would
vary based on the receiving courts' ability to accommodate a
judgeship, and are not included in the cost estimate above.
Background: Existing law specifies the number of superior court judges in
each of the 58 counties (Government Code (GC) §§ 69580-69611.)
and allocates additional judgeships to the various counties in
accordance with uniform standards for factually determining
additional judicial need in each county, as updated and approved
AB 2341 (Obernolte) Page 1 of
?
by the Judicial Council, based on the following criteria: (1)
court filings data averaged over a period of three years, (2)
workload standards that represent the average amount of time of
bench and nonbench work required to resolve each type of case,
and (3) a ranking methodology that provides consideration for
courts that have the greatest need relative to their current
complement of judicial officers. (GC § 69614(b).)
The Judicial Council is required to report to the Legislature
and Governor by November 1st 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
described above, as updated and applied to the average of the
prior three years' filings. (GC § 69614(c).)
Based on the Judicial Council biennial report, The Need for New
Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2014 Update of Judicial Needs
Assessment (November 2014), nearly 270 new judicial officers are
needed to meet the workload-based need for new judgeships.
Courts whose assessed judicial need, as measured in the biennial
Judicial Needs Assessment, is greater than those courts' number
of authorized judicial positions are each eligible for
consideration for a new judgeship. Currently, courts must have a
need for at least 1.0 FTE judicial officer to become eligible
for a new judgeship.
Last year, the Governor vetoed SB 229 (Roth), a bill that would
have appropriated $5 million General Fund (1/2 year funding) to
fund 12 new judgeships and accompanying staff. 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.
The 2016-17 Governor's Budget included a trailer bill proposal
to reallocate four vacant superior court judgeships (two each
from Santa Clara and Alameda superior courts reallocated to San
Bernardino and Riverside superior courts), however, the
reallocation of judgeships was rejected by the Budget Conference
Committee and was not adopted as part of the final 2016 Budget
Act.
AB 2341 (Obernolte) Page 2 of
?
Proposed Law:
This bill would upon notice to the applicable courts, authorize
up to five vacant judgeships to 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, pursuant to the
following requirements:
Requires the allocation of vacant judgeships to be in
accordance with a methodology approved by the Judicial Council
after solicitation of public comments. The determination of a
superior court's assessed judicial need shall 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, as specified.
Provides 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. If the
judgeship is eligible for allocation to another superior
court, the Judicial Council shall promptly notify the
applicable courts, the Legislature, and the Governor that the
judgeship vacated in one court shall be allocated to another
court.
Provides that for purposes of this section only, a judgeship
shall become "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:
o At any time before the deadline to file a
declaration of intention to become a candidate for a
judicial office pursuant to Section 8023 of the Elections
Code.
o After the deadline to file a declaration of
intention to become a candidate for a judicial office
AB 2341 (Obernolte) Page 3 of
?
pursuant to Section 8023 of the Elections Code if no
candidate submits qualifying nomination papers by the
deadline pursuant to Section 8020 of the Elections Code.
For purposes of this section, 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.
States the legislative intent that this act shall not be
construed to limit any of the following:
o The authority of the Legislature to create and fund
new judgeships pursuant to Section 4 of Article VI of the
California Constitution.
o The authority of the Governor to appoint a person to
fill a vacancy pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16
of Article VI of the California Constitution.
o The authority of the Chief Justice of California to
assign judges pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 6 of
Article VI of the California Constitution.
Related
Legislation: SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary) 2016 would have
appropriated $5 million from the General Fund for the purpose of
funding 12 new superior court judgeships, and accompanying
staff, as specified. This bill was held on the Suspense File of
this Committee.
Prior Legislation: SB 229 (Roth) 2015 would have appropriated
$5 million from the General Fund for the purpose of funding 12
new superior court judgeships, and accompanying staff, as
specified. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
AB 2341 (Obernolte) Page 4 of
?
I am returning Senate Bill 229 without my signature. This bill
appropriates $5 million from the General Fund for 12 new
superior court judgeships and accompanying staff.
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.
AB 159 (Jones) Chapter 722/2007 authorized, upon legislative
appropriation in the 2007-08 fiscal year, 50 new superior court
judgeships to be allocated pursuant to uniform criteria as
updated and approved by the Judicial Council for assessing the
need for additional trial court judges. AB 159 permitted, upon
subsequent legislative authorization, the conversion of 146
existing subordinate judicial officer (SJO) positions to
judgeships in eligible superior courts upon a vacancy of a SJO
position. These 50 judgeships were not funded.
SB 56 (Dunn) Chapter 390/2006 authorized, upon legislative
appropriation in FY 2006-07, 50 additional superior court
judgeships to be allocated to various county courts in
accordance with uniform standards established by the Judicial
Council. These 50 judgeships were funded.
Staff
Comments: By authorizing the reallocation of up to five vacant
judgeships to be allocated from superior courts with more
authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need to
superior courts with fewer than their assessed judicial need,
the provisions of this bill could result in future cost pressure
to fund judgeships sooner than otherwise may have occurred in
the absence of the reallocation, assuming the judgeships would
have remained vacant and unfunded for a longer period of time in
the court jurisdictions with more authorized judgeships than
their assessed judicial need.
Based on information from the Judicial Council, the total
AB 2341 (Obernolte) Page 5 of
?
on-going cost of a new judgeship with a full staffing complement
(including support staff salaries, benefits, and operating
costs) is estimated at approximately $1.3 million per judge. To
the extent the receiving courts agree to a reduced staffing
formula below the full staffing complement as estimated above,
the annual costs would be somewhat lower.
Additional one-time facilities and overhead costs to establish a
new judgeship could be incurred and would vary depending on the
receiving courts' ability to accommodate the judgeship, as some
courts have existing space to accommodate a new judgeship, while
others do not.
Staff notes the 2016-17 Governor's Budget included a trailer
bill proposal to reallocate four vacant superior court
judgeships (two each from Santa Clara and Alameda superior
courts reallocated to San Bernardino and Riverside superior
courts), however, the reallocation of judgeships was rejected by
the Budget Conference Committee and was not adopted as part of
the final 2016 Budget Act.
-- END --