BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Martha M. Escutia, Chair
2001-2002 Regular Session
SB 1316 S
Committee on Judiciary B
As Amended April 9, 2002
Hearing Date: April 23, 2002 1
Various Codes 3
GMO:cjt 1
6
SUBJECT
Trial Court Restructuring: Statutes Made Obsolete
DESCRIPTION
This bill would amend or delete statutes made obsolete by
trial court restructuring and make related changes.
BACKGROUND
The trial court system of the state underwent monumental
restructuring in the 1990's, beginning with the
Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, when the
state assumed full responsibility for trial court funding.
This was followed by the Trial Court Unification Act, which
unified the justice courts, municipal courts, and superior
courts, and the Trial Court Employment Protection and
Governance Act (TCEPGA), which transferred control of trial
court employment to the courts. The Legislature has
steadily moved towards completion of the courts'
restructuring in order to improve achieve a better judicial
system.
In enacting TCEPGA, the last of the three major trial court
reform bills, the Legislature also directed the California
Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to study the statutes
affected by the two previous acts and to make
recommendations to the Legislature on repealing statutes
made obsolete by the trial court reforms.
(more)
SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 2
The tentative recommendations of the CLRC were published in
November 2001, and have been out for public comment since
then. This bill contains revisions proposed by the CLRC to
date, but does not include many more statutes affected by
the court reform bills because those statutes are "not ripe
for amendment or repeal" for various reasons. (See Comment
1.) The recommendations in SB 1316 include not only
statutory revisions that would become effective on January
1, 2003, but also proposals for constitutional revisions
resulting from the court reform acts that would become
effective only after voter approval.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , Title 8 of the Government Code, governs the
organization and structure of the courts of the state.
Title 8 affects other provisions in the Code of Civil
Procedure, the Penal Code, and other Government Code
sections.
This bill would delete provisions made obsolete by the
trial court reform bills enacted in 1996, 1998 and 2000 and
amend others in order to conform them to changes made by
the reform bills. The bill also would place on the ballot,
for voter approval, various constitutional revisions
necessary to conform the constitution to the legislative
changes made by the trial court reform bills.
COMMENT
1. SB 1316 is the first step towards a complete clean up
of the statutes
As directed by the Legislature, the California Law Review
Commission studied numerous statutes affected by the
trial court reform bills of the late 1990's. These
statutes prescribe the number, qualifications, and
compensation of municipal court judges, officers, and
employees as well as provide for the officers and
employees of the superior courts. They also affect court
clerks, official court reporters, and in some cases,
specific counties because there are statutes uniquely
applicable to them.
SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 3
The CLRC states that the restructuring of the trial court
system enacted new provisions that are now at odds with
governing law. "To date, the only systematic effort to
conform existing statutes to the new law is the Law
Revision Commission's overhaul of the codes in 1998 to
accommodate trial court unification." [Trial Court
Unification: Revision of Codes, 28 Cal. L. Revision
Comm'n Reports 51 (1998).] Even that effort, the CLRC
says, was incomplete, since the municipal courts still
existed at the time that revision was made. For example,
county-specific statutes dealing with individual
municipal courts in various counties were not addressed
at that time, pending resolution of employment issues.
Thus, the CLRC indicates, many statutes still reflect the
dual court system.
This bill also does not address all of the statutes that
need repeal or amendment. Those not included in this
bill are because (1) stakeholders have not yet reached
agreement on key issues; (2) further research is required
due to the complexity of the law; or (3) additional time
is required to prepare appropriate revisions due to the
sheer volume of statutory material involved.
2. Statutes related to Trial Court Funding
The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997
consolidated funding of the trial courts at the state
level. Thus, the state has assumed full responsibility
for funding trial court operations, and a new scheme for
funding has been instituted.
The CLRC recommends reform of existing statutes that are
inconsistent with this new scheme. For example, some
statutes still vest control over court operations in
county boards of supervisors, a provision that is
inconsistent with the concept of state control of trial
court funding and court control over court operations.
SB 1316 makes the necessary changes on a
section-by-section basis.
3. Statutes related to Trial Court Unification
Unification of the courts has been achieved in all 58
counties of the state. Thus, the CLRC states, the
SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 4
general statutes should be cleared of remnants relating
to former municipal courts, and county-specific statutes
relating to individual municipal courts should be
repealed or recast. SB 1316 would do just that, but
leave for CLRC's continuing review, criminal and civil
procedures and appellate processes that will be the
subject of future cleanup bills.
4. Statutes related to Trial Court Employment Protection
and Governance
This Act made court personnel employees of the court,
rather than employees of the state or county, and gave
the local court control over budget and personnel
decisions. It maintains current classifications,
salaries, and levels of benefits and provides discipline
for cause and due process procedures as part of the
employment protection system.
The CLRC states that most of Title 8 of the Government
Code (organization and governance of courts) is devoted
to detailed statutes governing employment in former
municipal courts. These statutes have been rendered
largely obsolete by the enactment of trial court funding,
unification, and employment reforms. Most of them,
according to the CLRC, are ripe for repeal and would be
repealed by SB 1316.
5. Miscellaneous issues
a. Constitutional revisions
SB 1316 includes recommendations that would revise
constitutional provisions relating to the structure of
the court system, in order to reflect the unification
of trial courts that has just been completed. The
bill would, however, defer the operative date of the
repeal of Article VI, Section 23 of the California
Constitution, until the January 1 that falls five
years after the last court unified. Unification was
complete as of January 1, 2002. Therefore the
transitional provisions in the Trial Court Unification
SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 5
Act would be in effect until January 1, 2007, at which
time Article VI, Section 23 would be repealed).
b. Judges and subordinate judicial officers
This bill would conform the statutes prescribing the
number of judges in each county to the actual
judgeships formed when unification of the county's
courts occurred, and repeal the statutes dealing with
municipal courts. Further, the provisions governing
the timing of municipal court judges' elections would
be subject to a sunset date of January 1, 2008 to
allow time to repeal other statutes that may come into
play because some municipal court judges that became
superior court judges have terms of office that are
still governed by the municipal court statutes.
The Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance
Act (TCEPGA) also established far-reaching provisions
relating to subordinate judicial officers (such as
commissioners and referees) that "eclipse much of
existing law" relating to their authorization and
appointment. This bill would repeal much of the
existing statutory structure relating to subordinate
judicial officers because they have been rendered
obsolete by the TCEPGA.
c. Other obsolete statutes
Other statutes rendered obsolete by the trial court
reform bills include those affecting county clerks
(who were formerly ex officio clerks of the superior
court); official court reporters (except general
statutes dealing with fees and allocation of costs,
and official court reporters pro tempore, which takes
them outside of the TCEPGA). Statutes consolidating
sheriffs and marshals would sunset in 15
years in those counties that still need them today.
Statutory references to county-specific municipal
court structure and employees would be corrected as
well as statutory staffing statutes enacted for the
larger counties. Jury venire based on municipal
court districts would be eliminated, as all would come
under a general statute that incorporates existing
standards, subject to local rules adopted by the
SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary)
Page 6
courts.
In order to avoid unintended consequences that may
affect, for example, employment rights, this bill
would provide a savings clause that continues the
effect of repealed statutes to the extent that a
current employment right may be based on them.
Additionally, some statutes referencing retirement
benefits of former employees of superseded courts and
offices would be left intact despite their apparently
obsolete language.
For a more comprehensive description of the statutes
that this bill would repeal or amend and a listing of
matters that are not covered by SB 1316, the CLRC has
made available its March 2002 report, entitled
"California Law Revision Commission Recommendation:
Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring:
Part 1."
6. Conflicts with other bills
Legislative Counsel has pointed out at least 17 active
bills that SB 1316 would affect. The staff of the
California Law Revision Commission has assured the
Committee that double-joining amendments will be amended
into the bill prior to its enactment in order to avoid
any chaptering out problems that may arise as a result of
SB 1316 amending the same statutes as these other bills
propose to amend.
Support: None Known
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: California Law Revision Commission
Related Pending Legislation: See Comment 6
Prior Legislation: None Known
**************