BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 229|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 229
Author: Roth (D), et al.
Amended: 8/28/15
Vote: 27
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/21/15
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
SENATE FLOOR: 40-0, 6/3/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,
Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner,
Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
SENATE FLOOR: 38-0, 9/3/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,
Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Huff, Jackson, Lara,
Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner,
Stone, Vidak, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hueso, Wieckowski
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 9/2/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Courts: judgeships
SOURCE: Judicial Council
SB 229
Page 2
DIGEST: This bill appropriates $5 million from the General Fund
for the purpose of funding 12 new superior court judgeships, and
accompanying staff, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
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)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.
3)Requires that the uniform criteria for determining additional
judicial need take into account the following: (a) court
filings data averaged over a three-year period; (b) workload
standards that represent the average amount of time of bench
and non-bench work required to resolve each case type; and (c)
a ranking methodology that provides consideration for courts
that have the greatest need relative to their current
complement of judicial officers.
This bill:
1)Appropriates $5 million from the General Fund for the purpose
of funding 12 new superior court judgeships, and accompanying
staff, as specified.
2)Provides that the Judicial Council shall determine the
allocation of the funded judgeships pursuant to uniform
criteria, as updated and approved by the Judicial Council.
Background
This bill is the latest in a series of bills to fund new
SB 229
Page 3
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. 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.)
Comments
SB 229
Page 4
As stated by 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 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.
Prior Legislation
Previous legislation to increase the number of judges:
SB 1190 (Jackson, 2014)
SB 377 (Corbett, 2009)
SB 1150 (Corbett, 2008)
AB 159 (Jones, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007)
SB 56 (Dunn, Chapter 390, Statutes of 2006)
SB 1857 (Burton, Chapter 998, Statutes of 2000)
AB 1818 (Baca, Chapter 262, Statutes of 1996)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, General Fund
costs of $5 million in 2015-16 and $10 million annually
thereafter.
SUPPORT: (Verified10/29/15)
SB 229
Page 5
Judicial Council (source)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Judges Association
City of Riverside
Civil Justice Association of California
Consumer Attorneys of California
County of San Bernardino
OPPOSITION: (Verified10/29/15)
None received
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 9/2/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
SB 229
Page 6
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
Prepared by:Benjamin Palmer / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
11/5/15 10:34:10
**** END ****