BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 159|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 159
Author: Jones (D), et al
Amended: 9/5/07 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 7/10/07
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Ackerman, Kuehl, Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 17-0, 8/30/07
AYES: Torlakson, Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Battin, Cedillo,
Corbett, Dutton, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza, Ridley-Thomas,
Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Wyland, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-1, 6/6/07 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : New judgeships: new and converted judicial
positions:
collection of applicants and nominees
demographic data
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
DIGEST : This bill, upon legislative appropriation in the
2007-08 fiscal year, authorizes 50 new superior court
judgeships. Allocation of the new positions would be
determined pursuant to uniform criteria as updated and
approved by the Judicial Council on February 23, 2007, for
assessing the need for additional trial court judges. This
bill, upon subsequent legislative authorization, permits
the conversion of 146 existing subordinate judicial officer
CONTINUED
AB 159
Page
2
(SJO) positions to judgeships in eligible superior courts
upon a vacancy of a SJO position, provided that no more
than 16 subordinate judicial officer positions may be
converted in any fiscal year. Eligibility for conversion
would be determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to
uniform criteria for determining the need for converting
SJO positions to judgeships. The Governor may fill by
appointment the new vacant judicial position. Candidates
for appointment would be subject to review by the State
Bar's Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.
Finally, this bill revises the existing demographic data
collection requirement and instead requires the Governor to
collect and release, on an aggregate statewide basis,
demographic data provided by all judicial applicants
relative to ethnicity, race, and gender, and demographic
data on all judicial appointments or nominations relative
to ethnicity, race, and gender, as provided by the
appointee or nominee.
ANALYSIS : 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 of the California
Constitution, 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 of the Legislature, creates
an additional 50 superior court judges to be appointed by
the Governor in the 2007-08 fiscal year to the various
county superior courts as determined by the Judicial
Council pursuant to uniform criteria.
This bill states it is the intent of the Legislature in
enacting this bill to restore an appropriate balance
between subordinate judicial officers and judges in the
trial courts by providing for the conversion, as needed, of
subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in
courts that assign subordinate judicial officers to act as
temporary judges. The Legislature finds that these
positions must be converted to judgeships in order to
AB 159
Page
3
ensure that critical case types, including family, probate,
and juvenile law matters can be heard by judges.
Sixteen subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible
superior courts, as determined by the Judicial Council
pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for
converting existing subordinate judicial officer positions
to superior court judgeships, shall be converted to
judgeships.
Upon subsequent authorization by the Legislature, 146
subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible superior
courts, as determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to
uniform criteria for determining the need for converting
existing subordinate judicial officer positions to superior
court judgeships, shall be converted to judgeships, except
that no more than 16 subordinate judicial officer positions
may be converted in any fiscal year.
The positions for conversion shall be allocated each fiscal
year pursuant to uniform allocation standards to be
developed by the Judicial Council for factually determining
the relative judicial need for conversion of a subordinate
judicial officer position that becomes vacant to a superior
court judgeship position.
This bill provides that beginning in the 2008-09 fiscal
year, a subordinate judicial officer position shall be
converted to a judgeship when all of the following
conditions are met:
1. A vacancy occurs in a subordinate judicial officer
position in an eligible superior court as determined by
the uniform allocation standards, as specified.
2. The Judicial Council files notice of the vacancies and
allocations with the Chair of the Senate Rules
Committee, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the
respective chairs of the Senate and Assembly Judiciary
Committees.
3. The proposed action is ratified by the Legislature,
either in the annual Budget Act or other legislative
measure.
AB 159
Page
4
Existing law requires the Governor to submit to a
designated agency of the State Bar of California the names
of all potential nominees for a vacant judicial office for
evaluation of their judicial qualifications. Existing law
also requires the Governor, on or before March 1, 2007, and
annually on or before each March 1 thereafter, to disclose
aggregate statewide demographic data provided by all
judicial applicants relative to ethnicity and gender.
This bill revises that data disclosure requirement to
instead require the Governor to collect and release, on an
aggregate statewide basis, all of the following:
1. Demographic data provided by all judicial applicants
relative to ethnicity, race, and gender.
2. Demographic data relative to ethnicity, race, and gender
as provided by all judicial applicants who have not been
submitted to the State Bar for evaluation.
3. The names of all persons who have been provided judicial
application materials or related documentation on one or
more judicial applicants by the Governor or his/her
representatives to assist in the decision whether to
submit an applicant to the State Bar for evaluation,
other than employees of the Governor, including, but not
limited to, the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary and
Appointments Secretary.
4. Demographic data relative to ethnicity, race, and gender
of all judicial appointments or nominations as provided
by the judicial appointee or nominee.
5. Data regarding the general category of legal practice
and employment of all judicial applicants on or after
the time they applied to become a judge.
6. Data regarding the general category of legal practice
and employment of all judicial appointees and nominees.
This bill provides that the designated agency of the State
Bar responsible for evaluation of judicial candidates shall
collect and release both of the following on an aggregate
AB 159
Page
5
statewide basis:
1. Statewide demographic data provided by all judicial
applicants reviewed relative to ethnicity, race, gender,
and areas of legal practice and employment.
2. The statewide summary of the recommendations of the
designated agency of the State Bar by ethnicity, race,
gender, and areas of legal practice and employment.
The Judicial Council's assessed judicial need reflects a
three percent increase over the need calculated in 2004,
due to the fact that 46 courts experienced a growth in
judicial workload from 2004 to 2007. Generally, the report
found some modest growth in filings statewide since 2004,
and concluded that 76 of the 100 judicial positions in the
2004 plan would go to the same courts assigned in 2004, and
all but one of the 27 courts in the 2004 allocation remain
on the 2007 allocation plan.
The 2007 report changes can be summarized, as follows:
The Del Norte, Humboldt, and Yolo courts would each receive
one new position, up from zero in the 2004 report.
The allocations of the following courts would be increased,
as noted:
1. Fresno, by one, from six (in 2004) to seven (in 2007).
2. Monterey, by one, from one to two.
3. Placer, by one, from three to four.
4. Riverside, by one, from 12 to 13.
5. Sacramento, by two, from nine to 11.
6. San Joaquin, by one, from five to six.
The allocations of the following courts would be decreased
as noted:
1. Butte, by one, from two (in 2004) to one (in 2007).
2. Los Angeles, by three, from five to two.
3. Madera, by one, from two to one.
4. San Bernardino, by one, from 15 to 14.
5. San Diego, by one, from two to one.
6. Shasta, by one, from three to two.
AB 159
Page
6
7. Sonoma, by one, from three to two.
8. Ventura, by two, from three to one.
9. Tehama, by one, from one to zero.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09
2009-10 Fund
New judgeships unknown, major costs
General*
(See comment below)
Subordinate judicial (See comment
below)General*
conversions
* Trial Court Trust Fund
50 additional judgeships: Appropriates $40.575 million for
the new judgeships and includes $6 million in one-time
costs (for furniture and equipment) and $6 million in
ongoing costs (for construction, new leases and facility
modifications).
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/6/07)
Judicial Council of California (source)
California District Attorneys Association
California Judges Association
California Public Defenders Association
Civil Justice Association of California
Consumer Attorneys of California
Crime Victims United of California
Legal Aid Association of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the Judicial Council,
the bill's sponsor, "California is suffering from a severe
AB 159
Page
7
shortage in the number of trial court judgeships. The
ramifications are serious and far-reaching, and include a
significant decrease in Californians' access to the courts,
compromised public safety, an unstable business climate,
and enormous backlogs in some courts that inhibit fair,
timely, and equitable justice." The Judicial Council
writes:
"Access to courts is fundamentally compromised by
judicial shortages. Every citizen is constitutionally
entitled to impartial and timely dispute resolution
through the courts. With a judicial gap, civil
proceedings and family law hearings are routinely
rescheduled, with courts reporting delays of up to 18
months from filing to trial. This culture of
continuation keeps parents, children, victims, and
defendants in limbo. In the face of these delays, an
unknown number of citizens simply decide that the court
has no time for their problems.
"The public is endangered when there are too few judicial
officers to hear criminal cases. Significant backlogs in
criminal cases have serious repercussions. County jails
have had to release inmates early as a result of
overcrowding caused by multi-months delays in processing
criminal commitments. Heavy caseloads force liberal
plea-bargains that favor criminal defendants, because
criminal cases must be dismissed if they are not heard
within specified time frames. Delays occur in both the
issuing and recalling of bench and arrest warrants.
"Criminal cases must be heard within 90 days of filing
and thus take priority over all other legal matters. As
a result, civil justice suffers, creating uncertainty in
the business community--which cannot rely on timely
resolution of contract disputes."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Aghazarian, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Benoit,
Berg, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Brownley, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, DeSaulnier, DeVore, Duvall, Dymally, Emmerson, Eng,
Evans, Feuer, Fuentes, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garcia,
AB 159
Page
8
Garrick, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez, Horton, Houston,
Huff, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Karnette, Keene,
Krekorian, La Malfa, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu,
Ma, Maze, Mendoza, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nava, Niello,
Parra, Plescia, Portantino, Price, Richardson, Sharon
Runner, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Smyth, Solorio,
Spitzer, Strickland, Swanson, Torrico, Tran, Villines,
Walters, Wolk, Nunez
NOES: Anderson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Soto
RJG:mw 9/6/07 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****