BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 229
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
SB
229 (Roth) - As Amended June 2, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
SUBJECT: COURTS: JUDGESHIPS
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE APPROPRIATE THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY FROM THE STATE'S GENERAL FUND TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IN
ORDER TO FUND THE COST OF SIX OF THE 50 SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGESHIPS AUTHORIZED IN LAW TO HELP NARROW THE LARGE GAP IN
NEEDED JUDGESHIPS?
SYNOPSIS
This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council of California,
seeks to fill, upon legislative appropriation, six out of the 50
new judgeships previously authorized in law. 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. Funding for the 50 judges
authorized by AB 159 (Jones, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007) has
been repeatedly deferred, delayed, made contingent upon reaching
SB 229
Page 2
the trigger for federal stimulus funds, and ultimately denied.
The most recent analysis of the shortage by the Judicial Council
found that "nearly 270 new judgeships are needed to meet the
workload-based need in the trial courts." The shortage also
affects consumer and business groups, who allege that
"additional judgeships are undeniably necessary. We note that
in the opinion of many of our business members, a state with a
judicial system that can effectively and fairly resolve disputes
is a state where they can do business."
The bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 40-0, is
supported by San Bernardino County, Consumer Attorneys of
California, California Chamber of Commerce, the California
Judges Association, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse,
and the Civil Justice Association of California, and has no
known opposition.
SUMMARY: Seeks to fill six of the 50 new superior court
judgeships that were previously authorized. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Appropriates $10,000,000 from the General Fund for the purpose
of funding six superior court judge positions of the 50
judgeships currently authorized by the Legislature.
2)Requires the Judicial Council to determine which positions are
funded, pursuant to uniform criteria.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the number of
judges and provide for the officers and employees of each
superior court. (California Constitution, Article VI, Section
SB 229
Page 3
4.)
2)Provides that the Legislature may provide for the trial courts
to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform
subordinate judicial duties. (California Constitution,
Article VI, Section 22.)
3)Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial
officers, and sets forth their duties and titles. (Government
Code Section 71622.)
4)Authorizes 50 new trial court judgeships pursuant to
appropriation by the Legislature in 2006-2007, and requires
the Judicial Council to update its Judicial Needs Study every
other year, based on the most recent prior three years'
filings data, and report that information to the Legislature.
(Government Code Section 69614.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council of
California, the judicial branch of our government, seeks to make
progress in adding judicial resources to an increasingly
overburdened court system. In support of the measure, the
author states:
SB 229 aims to be the beginning of an incremental approach
to funding the additional judgeships needed throughout
California. SB 229 would provide $10,000,000 for 6 judges
statewide. SB 229 defers to the Judicial Council of
California and its recommendation on where additional
judgeships will be established. According to the Judicial
Council's 2014 Judicial Needs Assessment, these 6 new
SB 229
Page 4
Superior Court judgeships would be allocated as follows: 2
to San Bernardino County; 2 to Riverside County; and 1 each
to Kern and Los Angeles Counties.
Background About Court Funding in General. Historically, trial
courts in California were county entities, funded by the
counties, but in 1997, after significant problems came to light
with the county-based court funding model, the Legislature
passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, AB 233
(Escutia and Pringle), Chap. 850, Stats. 1997. Under that bill,
the state assumed responsibility for funding the courts and
helping ensure equal access to a quality judicial system
statewide. After the state took over funding, the courts
received significant funding increases and historically
underfunded courts saw greater increases. Unfortunately, the
recession forced significant reductions in state General Fund
support for the courts, but "one-time" fixes, backfills and new
revenues spared the court system the full brunt of the General
Fund reductions.
Nevertheless the state's trial courts and their employees, and
all court users in the state, have been experiencing tragic
reductions in court services and basic access to justice. Trial
courts have taken dramatic and painful steps to address the
budget cuts, including (1) closing courthouses and courtrooms,
some on selected days and others completely; (2) laying off or
furloughing employees; and (3) reducing services, including
substantial cuts to self-help and family law facilitator
assistance, and providing fewer court reporters and court
interpreters. While this year's budget increased trial court
funding by $129 million and the 2015-16 budget includes an
additional $166 million for the trial courts on top of last
year's $129 million, one-time fixes have expired and large
reserves have been eliminated.
This bill is the latest in a series of bills to fund new
SB 229
Page 5
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),
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. 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.
Assessment of Current Need for Judgeships. 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 (2014 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." (2014 Needs Assessment, p. 3.) The
report further noted that:
Consistent with reports submitted in previous years, the
SB 229
Page 6
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.)
According to the 2014 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." (2014 Needs Assessment, pp. 1, 3.)
Impact of Judge Shortage. In its sponsorship letter in support
of SB 229, the Judicial Council states:
California is suffering from a severe shortage of
judgeships. The ramifications are serious and far-reaching,
and include a significant decrease in Californians' access
to the courts and ability to get critical matters heard;
compromised public safety; an unstable business climate;
and, in some courts, enormous backlogs that inhibit fair,
timely, and equitable justice?
SB 229
Page 7
The consequences of a judicial shortage are acute and
significant for the people of California. Access to the
courts is a right of every Californian, and that right
becomes hollow if disputes cannot be resolved by the courts
in an expeditious manner. The current gap between the
caseload and the number of judges available to hear those
cases means that critical civil proceedings and family law
hearings must be repeatedly rescheduled resulting in long
delays from the time of filing to the time of trial. This
culture of delay keeps parents, children, victims, and
defendants in limbo. Without resolution in their cases,
many litigants suffer economic and emotional harm, while
others may simply conclude that the courts are not
available to assist them.
The shortage also affects business litigants. According to the
joint letter of support from the California Chamber of Commerce,
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, and the Civil Justice
Association of California:
[W]ith previous significant budget cuts, a continuing heavy
criminal caseload and the demands of a growing population,
additional judgeships are undeniably necessary. We note
that in the opinion of many of our business members, a
state with a judicial system that can effectively and
fairly resolve disputes is a state where they can do
business.
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."
SB 229
Page 8
New Judgeships Will Be Allocated Pursuant To Uniform Criteria
For Determining The Need For Additional Judges: Under existing
law, if six of the 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 Needs Assessment
includes a list of the first six 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 Needs Assessment, p. 4.)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Judicial Council of
California:
SB 229 is the first step towards relieving the strain on
our most overburdened courts. Should it be passed by the
legislature and signed by the Governor, two new judgeships
will be created in each of the two counties most severely
impacted by the judicial workload crisis, with the
remaining two going to other highly impacted courts. It is
SB 229
Page 9
critical to the reduction in wait times and the ability of
the courts to provide meaningful access to justice to the
people of California that judicial workloads be kept at a
manageable level. SB 229 will take the first step towards
accomplishing these goals.
Prior Related Legislation: SB 56 (Dunn), Chap. 390, Stats. 2006
authorized 50 additional superior court judgeships and required
reporting on the diversity of judges and the applicant pool for
judgeships.
AB 159 (Jones), Chap. 722, Stats. 2007 authorized the creation
of an additional 50 new judgeships to be filled pursuant to
budget authorization beginning May 2008, and authorized the
conversion of up to 162 subordinate judicial officer (SJO)
positions to judgeship positions.
SB 1225 (Morrow), Chap. 49, Stats. 2004 clarified the duties and
definitions of subordinate judicial officers.
SB 1857 (Burton), Chap. 998, Stats. 2000 created 20 new trial
court judgeships and 12 new appellate court judgeships.
AB 1818 (Baca), Chap. 262, Stats. 1996 created 21 new trial
court judgeships and five new appellate court judgeships.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
SB 229
Page 10
Judicial Council of California (sponsor)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Judges Association
Civil Justice Association of California
Consumer Attorneys of California
San Bernardino County
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
SB 229
Page 11