BILL ANALYSIS
SB 56
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 56 (Dunn)
As Amended August 29, 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 |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDICIARY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Evans, Laird, | |Chu, Sharon Runner, Berg, |
| |Leslie, Levine, Lieber, | |Calderon, De La Torre, |
| |Montanez | |Emmerson, Haynes, |
| | | |Karnette, Klehs, Leno, |
| | | |Nakanishi, Nation, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Saldana, |
| | | |Walters, 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
SB 56
Page 2
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.
6)Provides for the Governor to annually disclose aggregate
demographic data provided by judicial applicants relative to
ethnicity and gender, for the designated agency of the State
Bar responsible for evaluation of judicial candidates to
disclose this demographic information (along with a statewide
summary of the recommendations of the body regarding the
candidates it reviews), and for the courts to disclose the
aggregate statistical demographic data for judges and justices
regarding ethnicity and gender. None of the foregoing
disclosures are to identify any individual applicant,
candidate, judge or justice.
SB 56
Page 3
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, additional ongoing General Fund costs of about $33
million. The 2006-07 Budget Act provided about $3 million in
ongoing funding to cover one month's salary associated with the
50 judgeships and $2.5 million in related one-time funding.
According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, the
average cost for each new judgeship is about $720,000 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, for 5 support staff and 1.1 bailiffs,
and associated office space and operating expenses for the judge
and staff.
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
SB 56
Page 4
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.
Because the reporting of applicant flow data is the key and
customary method by which diversity efforts are evaluated, the
bill similarly provides for the Governor to annually disclose
aggregate demographic data provided by judicial applicants
relative to ethnicity and gender, for the designated agency of
the State Bar responsible for evaluation of judicial candidates
to disclose this demographic information (along with a statewide
summary of the recommendations of the body regarding the
candidates it reviews), and for the courts to disclose the
aggregate statistical demographic data for judges and justices
regarding ethnicity and gender. None of the foregoing
disclosures are to identify any individual applicant, candidate,
judge or justice. This approach appears consistent with
existing state and federal employment requirements for the
reporting of employment diversity information by government and
other employers.
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
SB 56
Page 5
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0017658