BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary)
Version: February 12, 2016
Hearing Date: April 5, 2016
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
ME
SUBJECT
Courts: judgeships
DESCRIPTION
Existing law authorizes 50 additional judges, upon appropriation
by the Legislature, to be allocated to various county superior
courts, pursuant to uniform criteria approved by the Judicial
Council of California. This bill would appropriate $5 million
from the General Fund for the purpose of funding the cost of 12
of those 50 superior court judgeships 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),
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
SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 2 of ?
Committee. The most recent bill, SB 229 (Roth, 2015) was
identical to the bill currently considered by this committee and
was vetoed by the Governor because he intends to work with the
Judicial Council to develop a systemwide approach to balance the
workload and the distribution of judgeships around the state.
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
retirement, 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 12 of the
50 superior court judgeships and accompanying staff previously
authorized by AB 159.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
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. 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 the 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
SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 3 of ?
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 $5 million from the General Fund for
the purpose of funding 12 of the 50 previously authorized
superior court judgeships and accompanying staff.
This bill would require the Judicial Council to determine the
allocation of the funded judgeships pursuant to uniform
criteria, as specified.
SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 4 of ?
COMMENT
1. Stated need for bill
According to the author:
California continues to suffer from a severe shortage in
the number of trial court judges. The ramifications are
serious and far-reaching, and include a significant
decrease in Californians' access to the courts,
compromised public safety, an unstable business climate,
and backlogs in some courts that inhibit fair, timely and
equitable justice. A detailed analysis of judicial
workload conducted in 2014 identified a need for more than
250 additional judges to satisfy workload requirements in
California's 58 Superior Courts. Courts face the most
urgent need for judges in some of the fastest growing
counties.
The Judicial Council notes that "San Bernardino has experienced
a 13 percent growth in population in the last decade, and is
only authorized for 60 percent of the judges needed in that
county." The Judicial Council further notes that "Riverside
County has experienced a 30 percent growth in population and is
authorized for 60 percent of the judges needed in that county."
This bill would fund 12 new judgeships, "helping to alleviate
the strain on our most severely overburdened courts," as
contended by the Judicial Council.
2. Funding 12 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. (Jud. Council of Cal.,
Rep. on the Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2014
Update of the Judicial Needs Assessment (Dec. 2014) p. 1.) The
report asserted that: "The public's right to timely access to
justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in
SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 5 of ?
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." (Id. at p. 3.)
In response to the continued need for additional judgeships,
this bill seeks to fund 12 of the 50 judgeships previously
authorized by AB 159 (Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007). 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 12 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, under the current Judicial Needs Assessment, if
this bill is chaptered, the 12 judges would be allocated as
follows: four to San Bernardino County; three to Riverside
County; and one each to Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, San Joaquin,
and Stanislaus Counties.
4. Governor Brown's veto of SB 229
This bill is identical to the enrolled version of SB 229 (Roth,
2015). In vetoing SB 229, Governor Brown stated:
I am aware of 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
SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 6 of ?
distribution of judgeships around the state.
Support : California Judges Association, Consumer Attorneys of
California
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Judicial Council of California
Related Pending Legislation : AB 2882 (Committee on Judiciary),
among other things, would authorize the Judicial Council to
convert 10 subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships
in the 2016-17 fiscal year when the conversion will result in a
judge being assigned to a family law or juvenile law assignment
previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer.
This bill is pending referral in the Assembly.
SB 1023 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 7 of ?
Prior Legislation :
AB 1519 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 416, Stats. 2015), among
other things, authorized Judicial Council to convert 10
subordinate judicial officer positions, as specified.
SB 229 (Roth, 2015) See Background.
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.
**************