BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 56
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 17, 2005

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                   Judy Chu, Chair

                      SB 56 (Dunn) - As Amended:  July 13, 2005 

          Policy Committee:                              JudiciaryVote:9-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill authorizes an unspecified number of additional  
          superior court judgeships over three years, subject to  
          appropriation by the Legislature. Specifically, this bill:

          1)Authorizes an unspecified number of additional judges, for  
            appointment by the governor, in 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08,  
            respectively, upon appropriation by the Legislature in each of  
            those fiscal years. 

          2)Requires that the additional judgeships be allocated among  
            counties based on specified criteria. 

          3)Requires-when a vacancy occurs within an eligible superior  
            court in a subordinate judicial officer (SJO) position, and  
            the Judicial Council files notice of the vacancy with the  
            Secretary of State-that the position be converted to a  
            judgeship.

          4)Requires, upon appropriation by the Legislature, an  
            unspecified number of subordinate judicial officer positions  
            be converted to judgeships per (3). 

          5)Requires the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2007, to adopt  
            standards and measures to promote the fair and efficient  
            administrative of justice, including specified subjects, and  
            to report annually to the Legislature on these standards.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)According to the Judicial Council, the average cost for each  
            new judgeship is $755,000 annually, with variations by county  








                                                                  SB 56
                                                                  Page  2

            depending on costs of support staff and facility needs. This  
            amount includes the salary and benefits for a new judge  
            ($172,000) and for 5 support staff and 1.1 bailiffs  
            ($389,000), and associated office space, operating expenses  
            and equipment (including facilities and court security costs)  
            for the judge and staff ($194,000).

            (An earlier version of the bill proposed adding 150 judgeships  
            in equal increments over three years. Upon full  
            implementation, the annual cost of 150 judgeships would be  
            about $113 million.)

          2)For each conversion of an SJO position to a judgeship, the  
            additional annual cost, based on salary differences between  
            the two position, is approximately $30,000. The total cost to  
            convert the 161 current SJOs would therefore be $4.8 million.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . 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  
            Council, 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, California's population  
            grew by over 16%; yet the number of new judgeships created by  
            the Legislature grew by less than 3%. This imbalance is  
            demonstrated by the following examples provided by the Council  
            in support of this legislation:

             a)   In Butte County, between calendar 2002 and 2004,  
               felonies increased 22 percent, misdemeanors increased 8.6  
               percent, and juvenile dependency filings increased 40.2  
               percent.
             b)   In Kern County, since 1995, juvenile dependency cases  
               have increased 93 percent and overall juvenile filings have  
               increased 35 percent.
             c)   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.
             d)   In Placer County, overall court filings increased 9.6  
               percent from 2003 to 2004.








                                                                  SB 56
                                                                  Page  3

             e)   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.

            Some of the consequences of this judicial gap, according to  
            the Council, include the following: 

             a)   In June 2004, Riverside County suspended all civil  
               trials to address a backlog of criminal trials.
             b)   In Fresno County, 19.4 percent of civil cases that are  
               currently pending were filed prior to 2001.
             c)   In Sacramento County, civil litigants must wait up to 18  
               months for trial.
             d)   In San Bernardino County, each direct calendar judge has  
               875 cases pending trial, law and motion, or other hearings.

            The Council asserts that passage of SB 56 will reduce court  
            backlogs, promote the speedy resolution of civil disputes,  
            increase public safety, and foster a stable environment for  
            state businesses.

           1)Need For Converting SJO Positions To Judgeships  :  According to  
            the Judicial Council, because of the lack of authorization for  
            new judgeships since 1988-89, the court system has met its  
            workload demands by appointing commissioners and referees to  
            act as temporary judges. The Council notes this is not a  
            viable long term solution, however.  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% of  
            their time serving as temporary judges; in large courts the  
            proportion is 75% to 80%.

            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 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.









                                                                  SB 56
                                                                  Page  4

           2)Opposition  . The Service Employees International Union and the  
            American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,  
            while recognizing the need for an adequately staffed trial  
            court system, question the priority of adding judgeships given  
            the state's current fiscal situation and the resulting budget  
            cuts to education and social service programs.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081