BILL ANALYSIS
SB 56
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 56 (Dunn and Jones)
As Amended August 24, 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 50 new superior court judgeships
pursuant to objective criteria. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, with the requisite appropriation made by the
Legislature, there shall be 50 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: a) court filings data averaged over a
period of three years; b) workload standards that represent
the average amount of time of bench and non-bench work
required to resolve each case type; and c) a ranking
methodology that provides consideration for courts that have
the greatest need relative to their current complement of
judicial officers.
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
SB 56
Page 2
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.
4)Provides that on or before November 1, 2007, the Judicial
Council shall adopt, and shall report to the Legislature
annually thereafter, specified judicial administration
standards and measures that promote the fair and efficient
administration of justice.
5)Requires the State Bar to adopt procedures to facilitate
reporting of mandatory and voluntary information by providing
members with a centralized mechanism for reporting information
online at the State Bar Internet Web site, including, but not
limited to, data required to be provided pursuant to the State
Bar Act, or by other statutes, rules, and case law, and
demographic information. Any demographic data collected shall
be used only for general purposes and shall not be identified
to any individual member or his or her State Bar record.
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
analysis, according to the Judicial Council, the average cost
for each new judgeship is $755,000 annually, with variations by
county 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).
COMMENTS : According to the Judicial Council, this bill is
necessary in order to help close a substantial "judicial gap"
that portends a number of disturbing long term consequences for
our justice system: 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 at all kept pace with
population growth, and the resulting increased demand on the
SB 56
Page 3
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.
The bill also contains a provision which seeks to address
continuing concerns by many policy-makers about what the
demographic makeup of the state's judiciary. In this vein, the
bill requires the State Bar to adopt procedures to facilitate
reporting of mandatory and voluntary information by providing
members with a centralized mechanism for reporting information
online at the State Bar Internet Web site, including information
required to be provided pursuant to the State Bar Act and
demographic information. The bill carefully sets forth that any
demographic data collected under its provisions shall be used
only for general purposes, and shall not be identified to any
individual member or his or her State Bar record.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0017319