BILL ANALYSIS
AB 159
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 159 (Jones) - As Amended: March 22, 2007
Policy Committee:
JudiciaryVote:10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature:
1)Establishes 50 new superior court judgeships, to be allocated
among county courts pursuant to established criteria.
2)Establishes an unspecified number of additional appellate
court judgeships.
3)Allows up to 162 subordinate judicial officer (SJO) positions
to be converted to judgeships.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual GF costs of $40.6 million for 50 superior court
judgeships. According to the Judicial Council, the average
cost for each new judgeship is $811,500 annually, which
includes the salary and benefits for a new judge, for five
support staff and 1.1 bailiffs, and associated operating
expenses. In addition, the Council estimates $26.6 million in
one-time costs for additional and modified facilities and for
equipment.
The Council is requesting $30 million in the 2007-08 budget to
cover the one-time costs plus one-month's cost of the new
judgeships.
2)The annual GF cost for each additional appellate court judge
is $1.2 million, which includes salaries and benefits for the
judge, three attorneys and one judicial assistant plus
operating expenses.
AB 159
Page 2
3)For each conversion of an SJO position to a judgeship, the
additional annual cost, based on salary differences between
the two positions, is approximately $30,000. The total cost to
convert 162 current SJOs would therefore be $4.9 million. This
additional cost will occur incrementally over several years as
conversions are implemented, and the courts intend to absorb
these costs.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the Judicial Council, which is
sponsoring this bill, since 1980, the total number of new
judges in the trial courts has grown by approximately 20%.
However during the same period, total population in California
grew by more than 50%. In Riverside County, where recent news
reports have documented very serious backlog and other justice
problems, the population has grown 150% since 1980, and in San
Bernardino County, population has risen 100% over this time
period.
Last year, AB 56 (Dunn)/Chapter 390, authorized 50 new
superior court judgeships, bringing the total to 1,548
judgeship, with an additional 422 commissioner and referee
positions, for a statewide total of 1,970 authorized judicial
positions. The Judicial Council, however, states that current
judicial workload requires the services of several hundred
more judges to reach a total of 2,332 "Judicial Position
Equivalents"(JPEs), which include the appellate court
judgeships noted above, in addition to the services of
assigned judges, temporary judges, and temporary commissioners
and referees.
The council reports that this "judicial gap" 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.
Some of the consequences of this judicial gap, according to
the Council, include the following:
AB 159
Page 3
a) In June 2004, Riverside County suspended all civil
trials to address a backlog of criminal trials.
b) In Fresno County, 19.4 percent of civil cases that are
currently pending were filed prior to 2001.
c) In Sacramento County, civil litigants must wait up to 18
months for trial.
d) In San Bernardino County, each direct calendar judge has
875 cases pending trial, law and motion, or other hearings.
The Council asserts that passage of SB 159 will reduce court
backlogs, promote the speedy resolution of civil disputes,
increase public safety, and foster a stable environment for
state businesses.
2)Need For Converting SJO Positions To Judgeships : According to
the Council, because of the lack of authorization for new
judgeships since 1988-89, the court system has met its
workload demands by appointing commissioners and referees to
act as temporary judges. The Council notes this is not a
viable long term solution, however. Increased reliance on SJOs
has resulted in many critical court proceedings being heard by
judicial officers who are not accountable to the public.
Statewide, SJOs typically spend an average of 55% of their
time serving as temporary judges; in large courts the
proportion is 75% to 80%.
In theory, SJOs are appointed to perform "subordinate judicial
duties," such as hearing small claims cases, traffic
infractions, and certain civil discovery issues. In practice,
however, many SJOs act as de facto judges and hear misdemeanor
and felony cases, family law matters, and civil cases, limited
and unlimited, upon stipulation of the parties. The Council
reports that where parties have refused to stipulate to the
AB 159
Page 4
use of an SJO, cases must be re-calendared, thus adding to
court congestion. Converting SJOs to judgeships would be more
efficient and ensure that judges, rather than SJOs, perform
judicial work.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081