BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 229
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
229 (Roth)
As Amended August 28, 2015
2/3 vote.
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Judiciary |9-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner, | |
| | |Alejo, Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Maienschein, | |
| | |O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |16-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Nazarian, Eggman, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
SB 229
Page 2
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Seeks to fill 12 of the 50 new superior court
judgeships that were previously authorized. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Appropriates $5 million from the General Fund for the purpose
of funding 12 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.
2)Provides that the Legislature may provide for the trial courts
to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform
subordinate judicial duties.
3)Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial
officers, and sets forth their duties and titles.
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
SB 229
Page 3
other year, based on the most recent prior three years'
filings data, and report that information to the Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, General Fund costs of $5 million in 2015-16 and $10
million annually thereafter.
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. 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, 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.
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
SB 229
Page 4
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.)
Analysis Prepared by:
Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN:
0001673