BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 229 (Roth)
Version: March 23, 2015
Hearing Date: April 21, 2015
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
BCP
SUBJECT
Courts: judgeships
DESCRIPTION
Existing law authorizes 50 additional judges, upon appropriation
by the Legislature, to be allocated to the various county
superior courts, pursuant to uniform criteria approved by the
Judicial Council. This bill would appropriate $14,813,000 from
the General Fund to the judicial branch for the purpose of
funding the cost of 10 of those 50 judgeships and accompanying
staff.
This bill would additionally increase the number of justices in
the division of the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of
Appeal located in the San Bernardino/Riverside area from seven
to eight judges, and would appropriate $1,202,000 from the
General Fund to the judicial branch for the purpose of funding
the cost of that new appellate court justice and accompanying
staff.
BACKGROUND
This bill is the latest in a series of bills to fund new
judgeships in California to meet the increased judicial
workload. The first bill, SB 56 (Dunn, Chapter 390, Statutes of
2006), authorized the creation of 50 new judgeship positions to
be filled pursuant to budget authorization beginning May 2007.
The second bill, AB 159 (Jones, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007),
SB 229 (Roth)
Page 2 of ?
authorized the creation of an additional 50 new judgeships to be
filled pursuant to budget authorization beginning May 2008. AB
159 also authorized the conversion of up to 162 subordinate
judicial officer (SJO) positions to judgeship positions upon a
voluntary vacancy of the SJO position, up to a maximum of 16
conversions per fiscal year. The third and fourth bills, SB
1150 (Corbett, 2008) and SB 377 (Corbett, 2009) would have
authorized 50 new trial court judgeships but were held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee. The fifth bill, SB 1190
(Jackson, 2014), would have funded previously authorized
judgeships, authorized 50 additional judgeships, and increased
the number of justices in the Fourth Appellate District of the
Court of Appeal located in the San Bernardino/Riverside area.
That bill was similarly held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
While the additional judges authorized by SB 56 have been
funded, the funding for the 50 judges authorized by AB 159 was
deferred to on or after June 1, 2009. That funding was delayed
again to July 2009, and then, the funding was made contingent
upon reaching the trigger for federal stimulus funds. As the
trigger mark was not met, funding for the judgeships was not
provided.
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
retirements, 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.)
In an effort to help reduce strain on the courts and ensure
Californians' access to justice, this bill would fund 10 of the
50 judgeships previously authorized by AB 159, and increase the
number of justices in the Fourth Appellate District of the Court
of Appeal located in the San Bernardino/Riverside area.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. 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.
SB 229 (Roth)
Page 3 of ?
4.)
Existing law authorizes 50 additional judges to be allocated
to the various superior courts pursuant to uniform criteria
adopted by the Judicial Council, upon appropriation in 2007-08
fiscal year. 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 of judicial officers. (Gov. Code
Secs. 69614, 69614.2.)
This bill would appropriate the sum of $14,813,000 from the
General Fund to the judicial branch to fund the cost of 10 of
the 50 previously authorized new judgeships, and accompanying
staff.
2. Existing law provides that the Court of Appeal for the
Fourth Appellate District consists of three divisions and
states that one of the divisions shall hold its regular
sessions in the San Bernardino/Riverside area and shall have
seven judges. (Gov. Code Sec. 69104.)
This bill would increase the number of judges in the San
Bernardino/Riverside area from seven to eight.
This bill would appropriate the sum of $1,202,000 from the
General Fund to be used by the judicial branch to fund the
cost of a new appellate court justice and accompanying staff.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for bill
According to the author:
The Judicial Council estimates about 50 courthouses and 200
courtrooms currently shut down statewide affect nearly 2
million Californians. The County of San Bernardino, for
instance, notes that court budget restrictions over the
years have resulted in drastic operational and service cuts
throughout the County - courts in Chino, Twin Peaks, Big
SB 229 (Roth)
Page 4 of ?
Bear and Needles have closed due to the funding issues.
Riverside County courts lost $20-25 million over the past
five years, resulting in the closure of courthouses in
Riverside and Palm Springs. The effect is compounded by the
increased population growth in the region and historic low
funding in rural counties. Together each closure creates a
disproportionate negative effect on rural residents from
resulting increased travel costs that is not as pronounced
[as] in urban areas.
SB 229 appropriates $16,015,000 from the General Fund to
fund 10 superior court judges ($14,813,000), and establishes
and funds 1 appellate justice position in the Fourth
Appellate Court District's second division ($1,202,000). SB
229 aims to be the beginning of an incremental approach to
funding the additional judgeships needed throughout
California.
The Civil Justice Association of California and the California
Chamber of Commerce, in support, contend: "In order to have a
system that is fair to both plaintiffs and defendants in
California's civil justice system, we need enough judges to do
the job. As our former Chief Justice, Ron George has said, 'The
right to a fair hearing is an empty promise if there is no one
to preside over the courtroom.'"
2. Funding 10 of the prior set of 50 authorized judges
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
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, 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
SB 229 (Roth)
Page 5 of ?
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 response to the continued need for additional judgeships,
this bill seeks to fund 10 of the 50 judgeships previously
authorized by AB 159. While the addition of those judges would
not fully address the needs of the Judicial Branch, those
additional judgeships would help increase access to justice at a
time when those who use the court system are facing increasing
delays and reductions in services offered by local courts.
3. Allocation of new judgeships
Under existing law, if 10 of 50 judgeships authorized by AB 159
are funded, those judgeships would be allocated pursuant to the
latest Judicial Needs Assessment approved by the Judicial
Council. The criteria for determining additional judicial need
must 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 Sec. 69614 (b).)
Accordingly, as noted by the author, the 2014 Update of the
SB 229 (Roth)
Page 6 of ?
Judicial Needs Assessment includes a list of the first 10
courts, ranked in order of need. The report finds that "[t]he
Superior Court of San Bernardino County has the highest rank[ed]
score and is thus assigned the first judgeship to be allocated;
the Superior Court of Riverside County has the second highest
score and thus received the second judgeship. Courts can appear
on the list multiple times; in the list . . ., the Superior
Courts of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties each occupy
three positions on the list because the judicial need in those
courts is so acute." (2014 Update of the Judicial Needs
Assessment at p. 4.) The Judicial Council further notes that
this bill seeks to create "three new judgeships . . . in each of
the two counties most severely impacted by the judicial workload
crisis, with the remaining four spread among the next group of
impacted courts." Accordingly, if funded pursuant to this bill,
the 10 judges would be allocated as follows: three to San
Bernardino County; three to Riverside County; and one each to
Kern, Los Angeles, Stanislaus, and Fresno Counties.
4. Adding an additional appellate justice
This bill would also increase the number of justices from seven
to eight in Division 2 (the San Bernardino/Riverside division)
of the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District. That
increase is the result of a recommendation by the Judicial
Council's Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC) and
the Administrative Presiding Justices Advisory Committee which
found:
Workload in Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District
has continued to increase. Based on information from the
last three years for which data is available (2010-2011,
2011-2012, and 2012-2013), Division Two has an annual
average of 1,132 appeals becoming fully briefed. Applying
the weighted formula, that results in 115 cases per justice,
far exceeding all of the other divisions. A review of data
back to 1991 shows that in 2012-2013, the number of fully
briefed appeals in Division Two was at an all time high, as
is the three-year average. The workload is continuing to
increase, and the justices cannot continue to handle this
volume of cases. Two additional justices would reduce the
weighted workload to the ideal 89 cases per justice. (Jud.
Council of Cal., Policy Coordination and Liaison Com. and
the Administrative Presiding Justices Advisory Com., Rep. on
the Judicial Council-Sponsored Legislation: Two New Court of
SB 229 (Roth)
Page 7 of ?
Appeal Justices (Jan. 10, 2014) p. 4.)
It should be noted that although the prior recommendation was to
add two justices, the Judicial Council's Overview of Judicial
Branch Legislative Priorities for 2015 notes the intent to
"[s]eek funding for one additional justice in FY 2015-2016 and
the second additional justice in FY 2016-2017." Accordingly,
this bill would add, and fund, an additional justice in Division
2 of the Fourth Appellate District.
Support : California Chamber of Commerce; California Citizens
Against Lawsuit Abuse; California Judges Association; Civil
Justice Association of California
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Judicial Council
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
SB 1190 (Jackson, 2014) See Background.
SB 377 (Corbett, 2009) See Background.
SB 1150 (Corbett, 2008) See Background.
AB 159 (Jones, Ch. 722, Stats. 2007) See Background; Comments 2
and 3.
SB 56 (Dunn, Ch. 390, Stats. 2006) See Background.
SB 1857 (Burton, Ch, 998, Stats. 2000) created 20 new trial
court judgeships and 12 new appellate court judgeships.
AB 1818 (Baca, Ch. 262, Stats. 1996) created 21 new trial court
judgeships and 5 new appellate court judgeships.
**************
SB 229 (Roth)
Page 8 of ?