BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2116|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 2116
Author: Evans (D)
Amended: 6/29/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/10/10
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Hancock, Leno, Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 5/6/10 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Subordinate judicial officers: gifts and
honoraria:
enforcement
SOURCE : California Judges Association
DIGEST : This bill extends existing gift limitations and
honoraria restrictions currently applicable to superior
court judges and justices of the courts of appeal and the
Supreme Court to also apply to subordinate judicial
officers.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes the Legislature to
provide that a court may appoint officers such as
commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties.
(Section 22 of Article VI of the California Constitution)
CONTINUED
AB 2116
Page
2
Existing law defines subordinate judicial officer as an
officer appointed to perform subordinate judicial duties as
authorized by the California Constitution, including, but
not limited to, a court commissioner, probate commissioner,
referee, traffic referee, and juvenile referee. (Section
71601(i) of the Government Code)
Existing law provides that no judge shall accept gifts from
any single source in any calendar year with a total value
of more than $250. This prohibition does not apply to (1)
payments or reimbursements for travel and related lodging,
as specified, (2) wedding, birthday, or holiday gifts
exchanged between individuals, or (3) gifts from any person
whose preexisting relationship with a judge would prevent
that judge from hearing a case involving that person.
(Section 170.9(a)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure [CCP])
Existing law prohibits a judge from accepting an
honorarium, which is defined to mean a "payment made in
consideration for any speech given, article published, or
attendance at any public or private conference, convention,
meeting, social event, meal, or like gathering." (CCP
Section 170.9(g)(h)) "Honorarium" does not include income
earned for personal services customarily provided in
connection with the practice of a bona fide business,
trade, or profession such as teaching or writing, and it
does not include fees or other things of value received for
performance of a marriage. (CCP Section 170.9(i))
Existing law defines "judge" for purposes of the above gift
and honoraria limitations as a judge of the superior court
and justices of the courts of appeal or the Supreme Court.
(CCP Section 170.9(c))
This bill revises the definition of "judge" to also include
subordinate judicial officers, as defined in Section 71601
of the Government Code.
This bill requires the Commission on Judicial Performance
to enforce the prohibitions of this section with regard to
judges of the superior courts and justices of the courts of
appeal and the Supreme Court. With regard to subordinate
judicial officers, consistent with Section 18.1 of Article
VI the California Constitution, the court employing the
CONTINUED
AB 2116
Page
3
subordinate judicial officer shall exercise initial
jurisdiction to enforce the prohibitions of this bill and
the Commission on Judicial Performance shall exercise
discretionary jurisdiction with respect to the enforcement
of the prohibitions of this section.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/2/10)
California Judges Association (source)
Judicial Council of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes: "Recognizing
the need to prevent actual and the appearance of improper
influence or bias in the courts, AB 2116 would extend the
scope of existing judicial gift limits to subordinate
judicial officers, including court commissioners, probate
commissioners, referees, traffic referees, and juvenile
referees. The question posed by existing law is whether
the gift limitations that seek to eliminate actual and the
appearance of bias in the courtroom, but are currently only
applicable to specified judicial officers, should be
extended to subordinate judicial officers."
The California Judges Association, the bill's sponsor,
writes that "[t]here is no policy reason why [subordinate
judicial officers], in many cases performing the same
function as Superior Court judges, should not be subject to
the same gift rules as judges." The Judicial Council
writes in support that, "[w]hile subordinate judicial
officers are employees of the court and not elected
officials, for this purpose their role is indistinct from
that of judges and they owe the same accountability to the
public."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De
CONTINUED
AB 2116
Page
4
Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Tran, Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Block, De La Torre, Gilmore,
Mendoza, Vacancy
RJG:mw 8/2/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED