BILL ANALYSIS
SB 56
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
SB 56 (Dunn) - As Amended: May 27, 2005
As Proposed to be Amended
SENATE VOTE : 36-2
SUBJECT : NEW AND CONVERTED JUDICIAL POSITIONS
KEY ISSUES :
1)Should the number of superior court judgeships be increased TO
a number YET to be determined by the LEGISLATURE in order to
ADDRESS judicial workload CONCERNS?
2)Should some UNSPECIFIED NUMBER OF existing subordinate
judicial officer positions be converted into superior court
judgeships when those subordinate judicial officer positions
become vacant?
SYNOPSIS
This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council of California,
seeks, upon future legislative appropriation, to authorize an
unspecified number of new superior court judgeships for each of
the next three fiscal years. Placement of the new positions
shall be determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform
and objective criteria for determining the need for additional
trial court judges. The bill also seeks, upon future
legislative appropriation, to permit the conversion of an
unspecified number of existing subordinate judicial officer
(SJO) positions to judgeships in eligible superior courts upon a
vacancy of a SJO position. Eligibility for conversion shall be
determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform and
objective criteria for determining the need for converting SJO
positions to judgeships. Candidates for appointment under the
bill's proposed SJO conversion approach shall be subject to
review by the State Bar's Commission on Judicial Nominees
Evaluation. The bill is supported by many individual courts, as
well as the California Judges Association, the California
District Attorneys Association, Consumer Attorneys of
California, and many Bar groups. AFSCME opposes the bill,
SB 56
Page 2
stating current budget challenges suggest new monies would be
better spent on education, social programs and health care.
SEIU opposes the bill on similar grounds, expressing concern
that the calculated average annual cost per judgeship is
estimated to be $755,000 per year compared to an apparent
average $130,000 cost annually for a new social worker.
SUMMARY : Seeks to authorize the creation of new superior court
judgeships and the conversion of existing subordinate judicial
officer (SJO) position to judgeships upon the vacancy of a SJO
position. Specifically, this bill :
1)Upon appropriation of the Legislature, creates an unspecified
number of new superior court judges to be appointed by the
Governor in the 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 fiscal years, to
the various counties as determined by the Judicial Council
pursuant to specified uniform and objective criteria.
2)Authorizes the conversion of an unspecified number of SJO
positions in eligible superior courts, as determined by the
Judicial Council, to judgeships, according to specified
uniform and objective criteria, upon appropriation by the
Legislature.
3)Declares the Legislature's intent in enacting this SJO
conversion program to restore an appropriate balance between
subordinate judicial officers and judges and to ensure that
critical case types can be heard by judges.
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
4.)
2)Provides that the Legislature may provide for a court's
appointment of officers such as commissioners to perform
subordinate judicial duties. (California Constitution, Article
VI, Section 22.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the judicial branch of our
SB 56
Page 3
government, seeks to make some progress in adding judicial
resources to an increasingly overburdened court system.
According to the Judicial Council's September 2004 fact sheet on
the state of California's judiciary, there are currently 1,498
authorized superior court judges positions and another 414.6 (in
terms of full-time equivalents) commissioners and referees, for
a total of 1,915 "Authorized Judicial Positions" (AJPs). The
Judicial Council, however, states that current judicial
workloads ideally require the services of several hundred more
judges, to wit, 2,270 "Judicial Position Equivalents"(JPEs),
which include the AJPs plus the services of assigned judges,
temporary judges, and temporary commissioners and referees.
The Judicial Council reports that the state faces a "judicial
gap" that portends a number of disturbing long term
consequences: a significant decrease in Californians' access to
the courts; compromised public safety; an unstable business
environment; and, in some courts, enormous backlogs that inhibit
fair, timely, and equitable justice. According to the Judicial
Council, this judicial gap arises because the number of trial
court judges has not kept pace with population growth, and the
resulting increased demand on the courts. Between 1990 and
2000, for example, California's population grew by over 16
percent; yet the Judicial Council notes that the number of new
judgeships created by the Legislature grew by less than three
percent. This imbalance is demonstrated by the following
examples in the Judicial Council's fact sheet in support of this
legislation:
* In Butte County, between calendar years 2002 and 2004,
felonies increased 22 percent, misdemeanors increased 8.6
percent, and juvenile dependency filings increased 40.2
percent.
* In Kern County, since 1995, juvenile dependency cases have
increased 93 percent and overall juvenile filings have
increased 35 percent.
* In Kings County, since 2001, felonies have increased 71
percent, juvenile delinquency cases have increased 4.5
percent, and writ filings have increased 32.5 percent.
* In Placer County, overall court filings increased 9.6
percent from 2003 to 2004.
* In Riverside County, in fiscal year 2003-2004, felony
filings increased 5.2 percent and traffic filings increased
5.7 percent. There has also been a 9 percent increase in new
family law and domestic violence cases in the past 5 years.
SB 56
Page 4
Some of the consequences of this judicial gap, according to the
Judicial Council, include the following:
* In June 2004, Riverside County suspended all civil trials
to address a backlog of criminal trials.
* In Fresno County, 19.4 percent of civil cases that are
currently pending were filed prior to 2001.
* In Sacramento County, civil litigants must wait up to 18
months for trial.
* In San Bernardino County, each direct calendar judge has
875 cases pending trial, law and motion, or other hearings.
The Judicial Council asserts that passage of this measure will
reduce court backlogs, promote the speedy resolution of civil
disputes, increase public safety, and foster a stable
environment for state businesses. As Chief Justice Ronald M.
George noted in his State of the Judiciary address recently: "We
have documented the need for additional [judgeships] to enable
the courts to promptly handle the ever-increasing workload they
face. The need is there, it is documented, and it has not been
disputed. Having a sufficient number of judges available to
respond to cases filed by Californians and their public and
private agencies is a crucial component of access to justice."
The Judicial Council points out that its uniform and objective
assessment criteria contained in its 2001 and 2004 Judicial
Needs Studies identified a statewide need for 355 new trial
court judgeships. However, in consideration of the state's
ongoing fiscal crisis, the Council initially suggested a need
for 150 new judgeships over the next three years. However the
current version of this legislation, pursuant to amendments
taken in the Senate Appropriations Committee, no longer
specifies any particular number of judgeships or SJO
conversions. The author states that the precise number of the
new judgeships and SJO conversions under the bill must await
further discussions by legislative leaders, and once these
determinations are made the bill can be brought back to the
Committee for further consideration if needed.
Projected Costs Of New Judgeships : According to the Judicial
Council, the average ongoing cost for a new judgeship is
estimated to be $755,000 annually, with variations by county
depending on costs of support staff and facility needs. This
estimate includes the salary and benefits for a new judge
SB 56
Page 5
($172,000), salary and benefits for 5 support staff and 1.1
bailiffs ($389,000), and office space, operating expenses and
equipment (including facilities and court security costs) for
the judge and staff ($193,000).
The Judicial Council estimates the first year costs of this bill
at $3 million, based upon its assumption that the Governor will
not make the appointments until June 1st of next year. This may
be a reasonable assumption, given the condition contained in the
bill that any new judgeships will be created only upon
appropriation by the Legislature.
The full year cost for the earlier considered 50 new judicial
positions for each of the next three years would average
approximately $37 million annually for each group of 50 judges.
Included with this $37 million estimate is the estimated
facilities cost of an averaged $3.5 million for each group of 50
new judgeships. Estimates are based on the assumption that the
first positions created will be housed in existing facilities,
or leased space, until new or renovated facilities are built.
Building costs for permanent space will of course be much more
expensive.
New Judgeships Will Be Allocated Pursuant To Uniform Criteria
For Determining The Need For Additional Judges : This measure
currently provides for the appointment of the new judgeships by
the Governor "to the various county superior courts, as
determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform criteria
for determining the need for additional superior court judges."
According to the Council, these criteria are established by the
California Judicial Workload Assessment study conducted by the
National Center for State Courts. The Council states that this
study calculated workload standards based on 18 different case
types, since different types of filings require different
amounts of time.
The Council's recent 2004 assessment of judicial need was built
upon an earlier 2001 statewide assessment of judicial needs,
which was based on the following assumptions:
* Judicial officers have available, on average, 215 days per
year for case resolution, which was reached by removing
weekends and applying a standard deduction for vacation, sick
leave, and participation in judicial conference and education
programs from the calendar year.
SB 56
Page 6
* California judicial officers are assumed to spend an
average of six hours a day on case specific responsibilities
and two hours per day on non-case related administration,
community activities, travel, etc. (October 26, 2001, Report
to Judicial Council, "Results of statewide assessment of
judicial needs including list of recommended new judgeships,"
at p. 3.)
Based on these assumptions, the 2001 report estimated a need for
an additional 365 judicial positions, a 19.2 percent increase
from the then 1,905 Authorized Judicial Positions (AJP) to 2,270
judicial positions. The 2004 report projects a need of 355 new
judicial positions, based upon the same assumptions, which is an
18.5 percent increase. The reduction from 365 needed positions
in 2001 to the 355 needed positions in 2004 reflects the
increase of 10 new AJPs between 2001 and 2004.
As noted in the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of this
measure:
Applying the above assumptions, judges spend 8 hours a
day on their jobs, with no overtime and weekends.
They commit 6 hours of 215 work days or 1,290 hours in
a year to case resolution. They commit another 2
hours a day of 215 work days or 430 hours a year to
administration, travel and community activities. An
unstated number of days is also spent on judicial
conferences and education, but is likely to be around
10 days if the following calculation is correct in its
assumptions: 365 days minus 13 court holidays, minus
102 weekend days, minus 15 days vacation, and minus 10
days for sick leave.
Quantitatively, if the current judicial officers were
to work a 48-hour week instead of a 40-hour week, the
20 percent increase in work time would eliminate the
need to increase the number of AJPs by 18.5 percent.
However, asking judicial officers to sacrifice may be
unfair when many of them have already taken a
significant pay cut from their private firms or
practice to accept a judicial appointment. Moreover,
this approach would not address the need in counties
such as Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin,
Merced, Fresno and Sacramento, where population growth
SB 56
Page 7
has far outpaced the ability of local judges and
commissioners to just work a little harder.
Suggested Amendments : Following are suggested amendments to
more precisely specify the uniform and objective criteria that
must be used when determining which courts will receive new
judicial resources under the bill, as well as proceed with an
effort to maximize progress in the administration of justice.
The proposed amendments are as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 69613 is added to the Government
2 Code, to read:
3 69613. (a) Additional judges shall be authorized in
the county superior courts pursuant to the following objective
criteria administered by the Judicial Council:
(1) Court filings data averaged over a period of three years.
(2) Workload standards that represent the average bench and
non-bench time required to resolve each case type.
(3) A ranking methodology that provides consideration for
courts with the greatest need relative to their current
complement of judicial officers.
(b) The Judicial Council shall adopt on or before January 1,
2007, and annually report thereafter on, judicial administration
standards and measures that promote the fair and efficient
administration of justice, including equal access and respectful
treatment for all court participants; case processing, including
the efficient use of judicial resources; and general court
administration.
SEC 2. Section 69614 is added to the Government Code, to read:
(a) Upon appropriation by the Legislature in the
4 2005-06 fiscal year, there shall be 50 _____ additional
judges of
5 the superior court for appointment by the Governor to the
various
6 county superior courts, as determined by the Judicial
Council
7 pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for
SB 56
Page 8
8 additional superior court judges.
9 (b) Upon appropriation by the Legislature in the
2006-07
10 fiscal year, there shall be 50 _____ additional judges
of the
11 superior court for appointment by the Governor pursuant to
the criteria set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 69613. to
the various
12 county superior courts, as determined by the Judicial
Council
13 pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for
14 additional superior court judges.
15 (c) Upon appropriation by the Legislature in the
2007-08 fiscal
16 year, there shall be 50 _____ additional judges of the
superior
17 court for appointment by the Governor pursuant to the
criteria set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 69613. to the
various county
18 superior courts, as determined by the Judicial Council
pursuant to
19 uniform criteria for determining the need for additional
superior
20 court judges.
21 SEC. 2 3. Section 69614 is added to the Government
Code, to
22 read:
23 69614. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in
enacting this
24 section to restore an appropriate balance between
subordinate
25 judicial officers and judges in the trial courts by
providing for the
26 conversion, as needed, of subordinate judicial officer
positions to
27 judgeships in courts that assign subordinate judicial
officers to
28 act as temporary judges. The Legislature finds that these
29 positions must be converted to judgeships in order to
ensure that
30 critical case types, including family, probate, and
juvenile law
31 matters can be heard by judges.
32 (b) (1) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, no more
than
SB 56
Page 9
33 161 _____ subordinate judicial officer positions in
eligible
34 superior courts, as determined by the Judicial Council
pursuant to
35 uniform criteria for determining the need for converting
existing
36 subordinate judicial officer positions to superior court
37 judgeships, shall be converted to judgeships as set forth
in
38 paragraph (2).
Stated Need For Converting SJO Positions To Judgeships :
According to the Judicial Council, because of the lack of
authorization for new judgeships since FY 1988-1989, the court
system has met its workload demands by appointing commissioners
and referees to act as temporary judges. However the Council
notes this is not a viable long term solution. Increased
reliance on SJOs has resulted in many critical court proceedings
being heard by judicial officers who are not accountable to the
public. Statewide, SJOs typically spend an average of 55
percent of their time serving as temporary judges; in large
courts the proportion is 75 to 80 percent.
In theory, SJOs are appointed to perform "subordinate judicial
duties," such as hearing small claims cases, traffic
infractions, and certain civil discovery issues. In practice,
however, many SJOs act as de facto judges and hear misdemeanor
and felony cases, family law matters, and civil cases, limited
and unlimited, upon stipulation of the parties. The Judicial
Council reports that where parties have refused to stipulate to
the use of an SJO, cases must be re-calendared, thus adding to
court congestion. Converting SJO positions to judgeships would
be more efficient in the long run and ensure that judges, rather
than SJOs, perform judicial work.
Costs of conversion : SJOs are usually paid at 85% of the salary
of a superior court judge, and conversion of an SJO position to
a judgeship will of course increase the pay for that new
position. Superior court judges are paid about $140,000.
Judges may also get additional benefits that are not provided to
an SJO. No cost estimates have been provided by the Judicial
Council. However any conversion of positions will be contingent
upon legislative appropriation.
The Judicial Council States that Reduced Court Filings Do Not
SB 56
Page 10
Tell The Whole Story : According to the Council's 2004 Court
Statistics Report, "Statewide Caseload Trends, 1993-1994 through
2002-2003," total civil filings fell from 1,737,323 in FY
1993-94 to 1,501,471 in FY 2002-2003. Total criminal filings
decreased, from 7,258,858 in FY 1993-94 to 6,673,070 in FY
2001-2002, the last year with complete reports. Felony filings
went up and down during the period, with 247,589 in FY 93-94, to
260,311 in 1997-98, to 237,799 in FY 2000-2001, to 246,034 in FY
2002-21003. Total non-traffic misdemeanor filings also dropped
substantially during that period, as did total traffic
misdemeanors. The filing of infractions dropped about 10
percent during that period, from 5,188,243 in 1993-93 to
4,673,131 in 2002-03.
Another Council report, "Filings per Judicial Position and
Dispositions per Judicial Position Equivalent," similarly
concludes that total filings with the superior courts declined
between from about 9.2 million in FY 1993-94, to about 8.4
million in FY 2001-2002, the last year with complete reports.
Yet, appointed judicial positions (AJP) as well as judicial
position equivalents (JPE) increased during that period from
1,795 to 1,919, the number of filings per AJP decreased from
5,112 in FY 1993-94 to 4,376 in FY 2001-02. Dispositions also
decreased from 4,484 per JPE in FY 1993-94 to 3,825 in FY
2001-02.
While these statistics might seem to argue against the need for
more judgeships, the Judicial Council responds that it is not
merely the number, but the type of filings that account for
judicial workload. For example, although family and juvenile
law cases represent only 3.5 percent of total filings, they
account for nearly one-third of the trial courts' judicial
workload based on workload standards adopted by the Council.
(Family law-marital filings dropped from 167,956 in FY 1993-94
to 148,511 in FY 2002-03. Other family law petitions, including
Department of Child Support Services complaints to establish a
parental relationship, rose from 292,816 in FY 1993-94 to
302,569 in FY 2002-03.) Conversely, the Council notes,
infraction filings make up almost two-thirds of total court
filings, but represent only 3 percent of the judicial overall
workload. Further, litigants who appear without counsel, which
involve a majority of the filings, pose a key workload issue for
the courts.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Service Employees International
SB 56
Page 11
Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) currently oppose this legislation.
While these labor organizations state they recognize the need
for an adequately staffed trial court system, they both question
whether this should be a priority given recent cuts to the
state's various educational and social service programs. For
example, given the current budget crisis and the corresponding
need to prioritize program funding, the SEIU states that the
organization "would elect to lower the caseloads of child
protective service social workers instead of judges." They
point out that while the cost of an additional judgeship is
estimated at $755,000 per year, the cost of a social worker,
including all associated costs, is only $130,000 per year. In
sum, both of these statewide labor organizations contend that
"staving off additional cuts or reinvesting in social and health
care programs and education" should be a higher priority than
creating new judgeships.
Prior Related Legislation :
SB 1225, (Morrow), Stats. 2004, ch. 49: Clarified the duties and
definitions of subordinate judicial officers.
AB 1698, (Assembly Judiciary Com.) of 2002 would have authorized
the conversion of up to 250 SJO positions, but no more than 10
per year, died without hearing in Committee.
SB 1857, (Burton), Stats. 2000, ch. 998: Created 20 new trial
court judgeships and 12 new appellate court judgeships.
AB 1818, (Baca), Stats. 1996, ch. 262: Created 21 new trial
court judgeships and 5 new appellate court judgeships.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council of California
California District Attorney's Association
Consumer Attorneys of California
California Judges' Association
Orange County Bar Association
San Diego County Bar Association
SB 56
Page 12
Opposition
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Service Employees International Union
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334