BILL ANALYSIS
SB 56
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 29, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
SB 56 (Dunn) - As Amended: August 24, 2006
SENATE VOTE : 36-2
SUBJECT : TRIAL COURT JUDGES: AUTHORIZATION OF NEW JUDICIAL
POSITIONS
KEY ISSUES :
1)Should the Legislature authorize an additional 50 superior
court judgeships to help address the current "judicial needs"
gap?
2)SHOULD ADDITIONAL REFORMS BE CONSIDERED TO IMPROVE THE
SUBSTANTIAL "DIVERSITY GAP" CURRENTLY IN THE STATE'S
JUDICIARY?
SYNOPSIS
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 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. The bill authorizes an
additional 50 superior court judgeships to help address this
"judicial needs" gap. The analysis notes recent amendments that
have been added to the bill to encourage greater diversity in
the make-up of the judiciary, and also raises the possibility of
additional amendments for the Committee's and Assembly's
consideration to further this important objective.
SUMMARY : Seeks to authorize 50 new superior court judgeships
pursuant to objective criteria. Specifically, this bill :
SB 56
Page 2
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
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
SB 56
Page 3
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
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 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
SB 56
Page 4
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.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsors, Judicial Council of
California state, "California is suffering from a severe
shortage of trial court judgeships." According to the sponsors,
trial court judicial positions have not kept pace with
California's population growth: "Between 1990 and 2000,
California's population grew by over 16 percent while the number
of new judgeships created by the Legislature grew by less than
three percent."
According to the California Judges Association (CJA), "The
shortage of trial court judgeships greatly diminish
Californians' ability to receive court services." CJA explains
that public safety is in jeopardy when there are not enough
judges to hear the large number of criminal cases within the
court system.
In support of this bill, the California District Attorneys
Association explains that SB 56 promotes public safety and helps
ensure equal access to California's court system.
The Consumer Attorneys of California state, "SB 56 is based upon
a solid empirical assessment of California's judicial needs and
SB 56 would work to reduce overwhelming backlogs in California's
courts, provides a more stable environment for state business,
and would work to increase public safety."
According to the Legal Aid Association of California (LAAC),
"Our member programs report to us that lack of sufficient
judgeships result in long delays, repeated continuances, and
even civil caseloads being forced to shut down for periods of
time." LAAC further explains that the lack of judges further
exacerbates the difficulties already facing members of
low-income and other vulnerable populations.
Letter from the Governor to the Chief Justice : In support of
this legislation, the Judicial Council shared a letter dated
August 16, 2006, that the Chief Justice apparently received from
the Governor, where the Governor notes his desire to address the
current lack of sufficient diversity in the judiciary. In the
letter, the Governor writes, among other things, that:
SB 56
Page 5
I am pleased to know that the judicial branch will
continue its outreach efforts. I appreciate learning
that you have suggested a review of the judicial
application process, and have expressed support for
consideration of out-of-area applicants if than might
help to identify candidates who can enhance the
courts' ability to meet the needs of the communities
they serve? I have asked Appointments Secretary
Timothy Simon to lead expanded outreach efforts to
identify and encourage qualified individuals to apply
for judicial office. In addition, my office is
reviewing the judicial application forms, along with
the applicant review process, to determine if
improvements in the application and the review process
might remove unnecessary obstacles and lead to greater
access and improved diversity. We are also considering
ways to provide better communication with applicants
regarding the application process and the status of
their application. I have asked the members of my
administration to reaffirm, in public communications
and engagements, my strong commitment to increased
diversity in the judicial branch. I also know that
leaders in the legislative branch share, and support,
our common goal.
Possible Additional Amendments for the Committee's, and
Assembly's, Consideration As This Measure Moves Forward :
Recently this measure was amended to appropriately seek new
tools for improving the demographic diversity of the state's
judiciary. As has been widely reported, many observers of the
state's judiciary have expressed concern that the judiciary
woefully lacks appropriate representation of women and persons
of color. According to one news report this week, since taking
office in November 2003, Governor Schwarzenegger has appointed
178 judges. Three percent of the seats reportedly went to
African-Americans, who represent 7.4 percent of the state's
population; 6 percent to Latinos, who make up 35.2 percent of
the population; and 7 percent to Asian-Americans, who comprise
13.4 percent of Californians. While those appointments are
obviously very far from representative, administration officials
reportedly state that the Governor has appointed
African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans in proportions
higher than the groups' share of the state bar membership.
SB 56
Page 6
However judiciary observers appear to agree that there remains
inadequate statistical data about the individuals available for
consideration for judicial appointment. As this bill moves
forward the Committee may therefore wish to discuss the merits
of securing additional data sources to have better tools for
addressing this diversity challenge, including the possibility
of some or all of the following:
1. Requiring the Governor to continue to collect and
disclose demographic (including gender and ethnicity) data
annually of judicial applicants.
2. Requiring the State Bar's Judicial Nomination Evaluation
Committee to collect and release data annually demographic
(including ethnicity and gender) data relative to those
judicial applicants reviewed and the evaluation that they
received by ethnicity and gender.
3. Requiring the AOC to collect and release annually
demographic date on all Article 6 judges for each specific
jurisdiction.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Court Reporters
Association states in opposition (emphasis in original):
It has come to our attention that the Governor's current
appointment practices have not reflected the current
ethnicity of Californians. It our position that the
Administration should not appoint any individual to the
Bench without giving consideration to all qualified
individuals.
CCRA is supportive of the 50 new judgeships, if protections
are put into place to make sure all qualified individuals
are given the right to go through the interview process.
Double-Referral : In the event the Committee wishes to pursue
the enactment of some or all such amendments, the amendments
ideally would be addressed, and formally taken, in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee in order to expedite the passage of
this legislation.
SB 56
Page 7
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council of California (Sponsor)
Alameda County Bar Association
Beverly Hills Bar Association
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Desert Bar Association
California Judges Association
California District Attorneys Association
Consumer Attorneys of California
Contra Costa County Bar Association
Judicial Council of California
Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs
Legal Aid Asociation of Claifornia
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Redwine and Sherrill
Riverside County Bar Association
San Bernardino County Bar Association
San Diego County Bar Association
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa
Superior Court of California, County of Fresno
Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Superior Court of California, County of Merced
Superior Court of California, County of Monterey
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
Superior Court of California, County of Shasta
Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma
Superior Court of California, County of Tulare
Superior Court of California, County of Ventura
Superior Court of California, County of Yolo
Thompson & Colegate LLP
Opposition
California Court Reporters Association
SB 56
Page 8
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334