BILL ANALYSIS
SB 56
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 56 (Dunn)
As Amended August 21, 2006
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :36-2
JUDICIARY 9-0 APPROPRIATIONS 13-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Harman, Evans, |Ayes:|Chu, Bass, Berg, |
| |Haynes, Laird, Leslie, | |Calderon, |
| |Levine, Lieber, Montanez | |De La Torre, Karnette, |
| | | |Klehs, Leno, |
| | | |Nation, Laird, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, |
| | | |Saldana, Yee |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to authorize 25 new superior court judgeships
pursuant to objective criteria, and to require the Judicial
Council to report to the Legislature and the Governor before
November 1 of every even-numbered year on the factually
determined need for new judgeships in each superior court using
uniform criteria. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, with the requisite appropriation, there shall
be 25 additional judges allocated to the various county
superior courts pursuant to specified uniform criteria for
determining the need for additional judges.
2)Specifies that the new judges authorized in the bill shall be
allocated in accordance with the uniform standards for
factually determining additional judicial need in each county,
as approved by the Judicial Council in August 2001, and as
modified in August 2004. This determination shall be based on
the following criteria: 1) court filings data averaged over a
period of three years; 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.
SB 56
Page 2
3)Requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature and
the Governor on or before November 1 of every even-numbered
year on the factually determined need for new judgeships in
each superior court using the uniform criteria for allocation
of judgeships described above, as updated and applied to the
average of the prior three calendar years' filings. This
report shall include an analysis of the extent to which the
allocation of new judgeships in the prior two-year period has
affected the administration of justice, access to the courts,
and the efficient use of judicial resources.
EXISTING LAW 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.)
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, General Fund costs of $19 million in 2007-08.
COMMENTS : According to the Judicial Council, this bill is
necessary in order to close 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.
The bill also clarifies the method that the Judicial Council
shall employ objectively and uniformly in assessing needs and
determining priorities in allocating judgeships. Specifically,
this bill defines the objective criteria used by the Judicial
Council to include the following: 1) court filings data averaged
over a three-year period; 2) workload standards based upon
average bench and non-bench time required for each case type;
and 3) a ranking method that provides consideration for courts
with the greatest need relative to their current complement of
judicial officers.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
SB 56
Page 3
FN: 0016510