BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 56|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 56
Author: Dunn (D), et al
Amended: 8/24/06
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 6-1, 4/26/05
AYES: Dunn, Morrow, Cedillo, Escutia, Figueroa, Kuehl
NOES: Ackerman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 12-1, 5/26/05
AYES: Migden, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin, Dutton,
Escutia, Florez, Murray, Ortiz, Poochigian, Romero
NOES: Aanestad
SENATE FLOOR : 36-2, 6/1/05
AYES: Ackerman, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin, Bowen,
Campbell, Cedillo, Chesbro, Cox, Denham, Ducheny, Dunn,
Dutton, Escutia, Figueroa, Florez, Kehoe, Kuehl,
Lowenthal, Machado, Maldonado, Margett, Migden, Morrow,
Murray, Perata, Poochigian, Romero, Runner, Scott,
Simitian, Soto, Speier, Torlakson, Vincent
NOES: Aanestad, McClintock
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hollingsworth, Ortiz
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 8/31/06 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Trial court judges and officers
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill requires, upon legislative
appropriation, 50 additional superior court judgeships
allocated to various county courts in accordance with
uniform standards established by the Judicial Council.
Assembly Amendments (1) recast the bill and require 50 new
judges in accordance with the uniform standards that were
established in 2001, and (2) require the State Bar to adopt
procedures to facilitate reporting by members of the State
Bar online.
ANALYSIS : This bill requires the State Bar 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/her State Bar
record.
Existing law, Article VI, Section 4 of the California
Constitution, provides that the Legislature shall prescribe
the number of judges and provide for the officers and
employees of each superior court.
Existing law, Article VI, Section 22, provides that the
Legislature may provide for a court's appointment of
officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate
judicial duties.
This bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the
2006-07 fiscal year, provides that there shall be 50
additional judges allocated to the various county superior
courts pursuant to the uniform criteria for determining the
need for additional superior court judges.
The judges 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 and approved by the
Judicial Council in August 2004, pursuant to the Update of
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
3
Judicial Needs Study, 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 nonbench work required to resolve each
case type.
3. A ranking methodology that provides consideration for
courts that have the greatest need relative to their
current complement of judicial officers.
This bill 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 bill requires that, on or before November 1, 2007, the
Judicial Council shall adopt, and shall report to the
Legislature annually thereafter upon, judicial
administration standards and measures that promote the fair
and efficient administration of justice, including, but not
limited to, the following subjects:
1. Providing equal access to courts and respectful
treatment for all court participants.
2. Case processing, including the efficient use of judicial
resources.
3. General court administration.
Background
According to the Judicial Council's September 2004 fact
sheet on the California Judicial Branch, there are 1,498
authorized superior court judges positions and another
414.6 (in terms of full-time equivalents) commissioners and
referees, for a total of 1,915 "Authorized Judicial
Positions (AJPs)." Judicial Council, however, points that
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
4
current workloads require the services of 2,270 "Judicial
Position Equivalents", which include the AJPs plus the
services of assigned judges, temporary judges, and
temporary commissioners and referees.
Projected Costs of New Judgeships
According to the Judicial Council, the average ongoing cost
for a new judgeship is estimated to be $755,000 annually,
which varies by court depending on costs of support staff
and individual court facility needs.
This cost estimate includes the salary and benefits for a
new judge ($172,000), salary and benefits for five support
staff and 1.1 bailiffs ($389,000), and office space,
operating expenses and equipment (including
facilities and court security costs) for the judge and
staff ($193,000).
The Judicial Council estimates the first year costs of this
bill at $3 million, based upon its assumption that the
Governor will not make the appointments until June 1 of
next year. This may be a reasonable assumption, given the
condition in this bill that the judgeships are created only
upon appropriation by the Legislature. The full year cost
for 50 positions averages about $37 million annually for
each group of 50 judges.
Within the $37 million estimate is the estimated facilities
cost of an averaged $3.5 million for each group of 50 new
judgeships. Because most (15 of 50) of the first group can
be housed by existing facilities, the annual additional
facilities cost for the first 50 is "only" $2.267 million.
However, costs escalate to an annual $3.646 million for the
second group of 50 (29 of
50 will need leased space) and to $4.652 million for the
third group (37 of 50 will need leased space). These
estimates are based on the assumption that the new
positions will be housed in leased space until new or
renovated facilities are built. Building costs for
permanent space will be much more expensive.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
5
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2005-06 2006-07
2007-08 Fund
Judgeships $2,946 $38,410 $75,193+
General
SJO conversion ----------- $3,470 annually
---------- General
Capital outlay -- -- --
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/06)
Judicial Council of California (source)
Board of Directors, California State Bar
California District Attorney's Association
California Judges Association
Consumer Attorneys of California
Orange County Bar Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff
San Diego County Bar Association
Superior Court, County of Riverside
Western Riverside Council of Governments
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/29/06)
California Court Reporters Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the Judicial Council,
the bill's sponsor, California faces a "judicial gap" which
must be bridged in order to avoid serious and far-reaching
ramifications, including 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Bass, Benoit, Berg,
Bermudez, Blakeslee, Bogh, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chavez,
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
6
Chu, Cogdill, Cohn, Coto, Daucher, De La Torre, DeVore,
Dymally, Emmerson, Evans, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg,
Hancock, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton, Houston,
Huff, Jones, Karnette, Keene, Klehs, Koretz, La Malfa, La
Suer, Laird, Leno, Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Liu,
Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Montanez, Mountjoy, Mullin,
Nakanishi, Nation, Nava, Negrete McLeod, Niello, Oropeza,
Parra, Pavley, Plescia, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Sharon
Runner, Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas, Spitzer, Strickland,
Torrico, Tran, Umberg, Vargas, Villines, Walters, Wolk,
Wyland, Yee, Nunez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chan, Vacancy
RJG:mel 9/8/06 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED