BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 377
Senator Corbett
As Introduced
Hearing Date: April 14, 2009
Government Code
SIK:jd
SUBJECT
New Judgeships
DESCRIPTION
This bill would, upon legislative appropriation in the Budget
Act, authorize 50 new superior court judgeships. Under this
bill, the new judgeships would be allocated to the various
superior courts pursuant to uniform criteria for assessing the
need for additional trial court judges updated and approved by
the Judicial Council on February 23, 2007.
BACKGROUND
This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council, is the fourth in a
series of bills to authorize 150 new judgeships in California to
meet the increased judicial workload. The first bill, SB 56
(Dunn, Chapter 206, Statutes of 2006), authorized the creation
of 50 new judgeship positions to be filled pursuant to budget
authorization beginning May 2007.
The second bill, AB 159 (Jones, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007),
authorized the creation of an additional 50 new judgeships to be
filled pursuant to budget authorization beginning May 2008. In
addition, AB 159 also authorized the conversion of up to 162
subordinate judicial officer (SJO) positions to judgeship
positions upon a voluntary vacancy of the SJO position, up to a
maximum of 16 conversions per fiscal year.
The third bill, SB 1150 (Corbett, 2008), would have authorized
50 new trial court judgeships. The bill was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
(more)
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 2 of ?
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 3 of ?
Funding was provided for the SB 56 judgeships and, as of this
writing, 49 of the 50 new judges have been appointed. The
following chart shows the appointments authorized and the
appointments made:
-------------------------------------------------
| Court | Judgeships |Appointment|Appointmen|
| | Authorized | s Made | t |
| | by SB 56 | |Remaining |
| | | | |
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Butte | 1| 1| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Contra | 1| 1| 0|
|Costa | | | |
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Fresno | 4| 4| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Kern | 2| 2| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Los Angeles | 2| 2| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Madera | 2| 2| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Merced | 2| 2| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Monterey | 1| 1| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Orange | 1| 1| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Placer | 1| 1| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Riverside | 7| 7| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Sacramento | 5| 5| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|San | 8| 8| 0|
|Bernardino | | | |
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|San Joaquin | 3| 3| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Shasta | 1| 1| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Solano | 1| 1| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Sonoma | 2| 2| 0|
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 4 of ?
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Stanislaus | 3| 3| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Tulare | 2| 2| 0|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|Ventura | 1| 0| 1|
|------------+-------------+-----------+----------|
|TOTAL | 50| 49|1 |
-------------------------------------------------
While the additional judges authorized by SB 56 have been
funded, the funding for the 50 judges authorized by AB 159 was
deferred to on or after June 1, 2009. That funding was delayed
again to July 2009 and then, most recently, the funding was made
contingent upon reaching the trigger for federal stimulus funds.
State officials recently announced that the trigger mark will
not be met, and California will not receive enough federal
stimulus money to avoid cuts, including $71.4 million for 100
new judgeships (the 50 authorized by AB 159 and one month of
funding for the additional 50 judgeships proposed to be
authorized by this bill).
According to the Judicial Council, since 1989, the total number
of authorized trial court judgeships has grown by only 8.5
percent while, during the same period, the total population in
California grew by more than 33 percent. This gap between
population growth-and increased caseloads as a consequence-and
the number of judges continues to widen.
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 5 of ?
The following chart from Judicial Council's 2008 Court
Statistics Report demonstrates the increasing demand on
California's courts and judges:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Fiscal|Judicia|Filings |Filings |Judicial |Dispositio|Dispositi|
| year |l | | |position |ns |on |
| |positio|Total (B) |Per |equivalen| | |
| |ns (A) | |judicial|ts (D) |Total (E) |Per |
| | | | | | |judicial |
| | | |position| | |position |
| | | | (C) | | |equivalen|
| | | | | | |t (F) |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|2006-0|1,972 |(a)9,458,0|4,796 |2,187 |(a)7,886,9|3,607 |
|7 | |64 | | |12 | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|2005-0|1,922 |(r)9,243,9|4,810 |2,123 |(r)7,867,2|3,705 |
|6 | |76 | | |74 | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|2004-0|1,917 |(r)9,018,1|4,704 |2,064 |(r)7,603,6|3,685 |
|5 | |99 | | |93 | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|2003-0|1,915 |(r) |4,700 |2,048 |(r)7,410,6|3,618 |
|4 | |8,998,857 | | |99 | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|2002-0|1,914 |(r)8,585,9|4,486 |2,047 |(r)7,305,4|3,569 |
|3 | |60 | | |47 | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|2001-0|1,919 |(r) |4,395 |2,041 |(r)7,827,8|3,836 |
|2 | |8,432,965 | | |60 | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|2000-0|1,906 |(r) |4,386 |1,998 |(r)7,758,8|3,883 |
|1 | |8,360,200 | | |60 | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|1999-0|1,889 |(r) |4,538 |2,020 |(r)8,071,7|3,996 |
|0 | |8,570,954 | | |84 | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|1998-9|1,880 |8,626,729 |4,589 |2,059 |8,172,666 |3,969 |
|9 | | | | | | |
|------+-------+----------+--------+---------+----------+---------|
|1997-9|1,870 |(r) |4,617 |2,041 |(r)8,305,5|4,069 |
|8 | |8,634,282 | | |98 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Column Key:
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 6 of ?
(A) Judicial positions include authorized commissioners and
referees in addition to the number of judges authorized for the
court.
(B) For all types of proceedings.
(C) B / A.
(D) Reflects authorized judicial positions adjusted for
assistance rendered by the court and assistance received by the
court from assigned judges, temporary judges, temporary
commissioners, and referees.
(E) Sum of Table 4 column A; Table 7 column A; and Table 11
columns A, D, G, H, I, J, and K.
(F) E / D.
Notes: (a) Criminal filings and dispositions are underreported
due to incomplete data from some large courts.
(r) Revised.
This bill would authorize 50 additional judgeships in an effort
to help reduce the strain on the courts and ensure Californians'
access to justice.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the
number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of
each superior court. (Cal. Const., art. VI, Sec. 4.)
Existing law authorizes 100 additional judges to be allocated to
the various superior courts pursuant to uniform criteria adopted
by the Judicial Council, upon appropriation in the 2006-07 and
2007-08 fiscal years. Existing law requires that the uniform
criteria for determining additional judicial need take into
account the following: (1) court filings data averaged over a
three-year period; (2) workload standards that represent the
average amount of time of bench and non-bench work required to
resolve each case type; and (3) a ranking methodology that
provides consideration for courts that have the greatest need
relative to their current complement of judicial officers.
(Gov. Code Secs. 69614, 69614.2.)
This bill would authorize 50 additional new trial court
judgeships, upon appropriation in the Budget Act to be allocated
to the superior courts pursuant to the uniform criteria approved
by the Judicial Council on February 23, 2007.
COMMENT
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 7 of ?
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
California continues to suffer from a severe shortage of trial
court judgeships. The ramifications are significant and
far-reaching. Californians' access to the courts is
negatively impacted. Public safety is compromised and an
unstable business climate results from the judicial shortage.
Significant backlogs in some courts inhibit fair, timely, and
equitable justice.
Furthermore, as the Chief Justice indicated in his 2009 State
of the Judiciary address, caseloads in certain areas tend to
increase during difficult economic times. For example,
criminal activity often increases during down times. So do
unlawful detainer and foreclosure actions, and there are
likely to be more petitions to modify child support because a
parent has lost a job or home. Unfortunately, times of stress
may also result in an increase in domestic violence or a
greater need for foster care.
Commercial transactions are also affected by economic
stresses. For example, as more parties cannot meet their
contractual obligations, an increase in contract disputes
results. All of this puts strain on our judicial system as
courts resolve these important issues with too few judicial
officers.
The Judicial Council, sponsor of this bill, writes:
. . . there continues to be an urgent need for new judgeships.
The Judicial Council's 2008 judicial needs assessment found
that even with the infusion of new judgeships by SB 56 and AB
159, California needs more than 325 additional judicial
officers to meet the demand. The Judicial Council has focused
its efforts in the past several years on seeking the 150 most
critically needed trial court positions. SB 377 will fulfill
that commitment. The judgeships authorized in recent years
will make significant strides in meeting the judicial need and
the needs of Californians who use the courts every day, but do
not solve the problems created by the lack of judgeships.
Access to the courts is fundamentally compromised by judicial
shortages. Every Californian is constitutionally entitled to
impartial and timely dispute resolution through the courts.
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 8 of ?
The current shortage in resources means that civil proceedings
and family law hearings are routinely rescheduled, with some
courts reporting extraordinary delays from the time of filing
to the time of trial. This culture of delay keeps parents,
children, victims, and defendants in limbo. In the face of
these delays, an unknown number of individuals 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. Backlogs in criminal cases
have serious repercussions, including that heavy caseloads put
pressure to plea bargain because criminal cases must be
dismissed if they are not heard within specified time frames.
And because criminal matters take constitutional and statutory
priority over all other legal matters, civil justice suffers
as well.
In its most recent Report to the Legislature on the Need for New
Judgeships, the Judicial Council included the following table
which provides a summary of the statewide need for judicial
officers and the assessed judicial need. The table compares the
need for judicial officers to the number of statewide authorized
judicial positions. The report notes, "[t]he total statewide
need for judicial officers is currently equivalent to 2,348
positions. The number of Authorized Judicial Positions is
currently 2,021. Thus the net need for new judgeships is 327
or, as a percentage of the total need, the judicial branch has a
13.9 percent shortfall."
Statewide Need for Judicial Officers:
---------------------------------------------------
|Year |Assessed |Authorize|Net |Percentage|
| |Judicial |d |Need | |
| |Need |Judicial |(AJN |Need |
| |(AJN) | |minus | |
| | |Positions|AJP) | |
| | | | | |
| | |(AJP) | | |
|----------+----------+---------+--------+----------|
|2004 |2,270 |1,921 |349 |15.4% |
|----------+----------+---------+--------+----------|
|2007 |2,332 |1,971 |361 |15.5% |
|----------+----------+---------+--------+----------|
|2008 |2,348 |2,021 |327 |13.9% |
|----------+----------+---------+--------+----------|
|Change | | | | |
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 9 of ?
|2004-2007 |+78 |+100 |-22 |-1.5% |
| | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
The report further stated, "[t]he shortfall of 13.9 percent
represents a modest improvement over previous shortfalls of 15.4
and 15.5 in 2004 and 2007, respectively. The improvement is the
result of the Legislature's creation of 50 new judgeships in
2006 and an additional 50 judgeships in 2007. Because of
continuing growth in the amount of workload in the courts,
however, the additional 100 new judgeships created over the two
years by the Legislature resulted in a net gain of 22 positions
- 100 new judgeships minus increased workload of 78 positions."
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 10 of ?
2. Sponsor asserts trial court judgeships have not kept pace with
population growth; resulting strain on courts' workload
According to the Judicial Council, between 1989 and 2008, the
total number of authorized trial court judgeships has grown by
only 8.5 percent while the total population in California grew
by more than 32 percent. During the same period, some counties
experienced extreme population growth. For example, the
population of Riverside County increased by 98 percent. San
Bernardino saw growth of 58 percent and Fresno 46 percent.
Sacramento County's population grew during this time period by
43 percent.
Population growth in turn leads to additional court filings and
court workload. For example, Judicial Council notes the
following examples of increased workload:
a. In June 2004, Riverside County suspended all civil
trials to address a backlog of criminal trials (the county
has since begun hearing some civil trials). According to
the Judicial Council, Riverside County Superior Court had
63,144 civil filings during 2008, and each judge has an
average of 2,000 pending civil matters on his or her
calendar.
b. Civil litigants in Sacramento County must wait up to 18
months for trial.
c. Each direct calendar judge in San Bernardino County has
875 cases pending trial, law and motion, or other hearings.
Courts in the fastest-growing counties face the most critical
need for judges, the Judicial Council notes. For example,
Riverside County has roughly one-half of the judgeships needed.
In Sacramento and San Bernardino, the courts have only 60
percent of the judgeships estimated to be needed, and in Fresno,
the court is operating with 64 percent of needed judgeships.
3. New judgeships will be allocated pursuant to uniform criteria
for determining the need for additional judgeships
This bill would authorize 50 additional new trial court
judgeships to be allocated to the various superior courts
pursuant to specified uniform criteria for determining the need
for additional superior court judges.
Pursuant to SB 56, on February 23, 2007, the Judicial Council
approved an Update of the Judicial Workload Assessment, along
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 11 of ?
with a formal methodology for selecting courts with subordinate
judicial officer positions eligible for conversion, using the
same judicial workload assessment standards that were used for
earlier workload assessments in 2001 and 2004.
Under existing law, these uniform criteria for determining
additional judicial need must take into account the following:
(1) court filings data averaged over a three-year period; (2)
workload standards that represent the average amount of time of
bench and non-bench work required to resolve each case type; and
(3) a ranking methodology that provides consideration for courts
that have the greatest need relative to their current complement
of judicial officers.
Based on that report and the uniform criteria, Judicial Council
indicates that the third set of 50 judgeships will be allocated
to the following counties as follows:
---------------------------
| Court | Judgeships |
| | Authorized |
| | by SB 377 |
|-------------+-------------|
|Contra Costa | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Fresno | 3|
|-------------+-------------|
|Humboldt | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Kern | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Los Angeles | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Merced | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Monterey | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Orange | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Placer | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Riverside | 6|
|-------------+-------------|
|Sacramento | 5|
|-------------+-------------|
|San | 7|
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 12 of ?
|Bernardino | |
|-------------+-------------|
|San Diego | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|San Joaquin | 3|
|-------------+-------------|
|San Luis | 1|
|Obispo | |
|-------------+-------------|
|Santa Cruz | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Shasta | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Solano | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Sonoma | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Stanislaus | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Sutter | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Tulare | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Ventura | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Yuba | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|TOTAL |50 |
| | |
---------------------------
4. Diversity in the state's judiciary
This bill would authorize 50 additional judgeships to be
allocated to the various superior courts upon appropriation in
the Budget Act. These 50 new judgeships-as well as the new
judgeships authorized by SB 56 and AB 159-are to be filled
through appointment by the governor. Although the sponsor of
this bill, the Judicial Council, does not have appointment
authority over these new judgeships, the issue of the
substantial lack of diversity in the judicial branch is
nevertheless noteworthy.
According to the California Current Population Survey Report:
March 2007 prepared by the Department of Finance, California is
the most populous and one of the most racially/ethnically
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 13 of ?
diverse states in the Union.
In March 2007, the Current Population Survey reported that
California's estimated population was 36.2 million, broken down
by race/ethnicity as follows:
------------------------------------
|Race/Ethnicity |Number |Percen|
| | |t |
|--------------------+--------+------|
|White |15,765,0|43.5% |
| |05 | |
|--------------------+--------+------|
|Hispanic |13,076,0|36.1% |
| |66 | |
|--------------------+--------+------|
|Asian |4,222,87|11.7% |
| |4 | |
|--------------------+--------+------|
|Black |2,218,88|6.1% |
| |9 | |
|--------------------+--------+------|
|American Indian and |128,356 |0.4% |
|Alaskan Native | | |
|--------------------+--------+------|
|Hawaiian/Pacific |205,026 |0.6% |
|Islander | | |
|--------------------+--------+------|
|Two or More |591,406 |1.6% |
|--------------------+--------+------|
|Total |36,207,6|100% |
| |22 | |
------------------------------------
The survey also found that gender distribution of California's
total estimated population in March 2007 was 49.8 percent male
and 50.2 percent female.
In contrast, the makeup of the California judiciary at the trial
court level is not nearly as diverse. For example, the December
31, 2008 Demographic Data Report prepared by the Administrative
Office of the Courts indicates that only 7.3 percent of trial
court judges are Hispanic, compared to their 36.1 percent makeup
of the general population. Similarly, 5.1 percent of trial
court judges report their race/ethnicity as Black or African
compared to their 6.1 percent of the general population.
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 14 of ?
Although they make up 50.2 percent of the general population,
only 28.7 percent of trial court judges are female.
Concerns about the lack of diversity in the state's judiciary
arose during the final discussions over SB 56, the initial
legislation to authorize the first 50 new judgeships. As a
result, new reporting requirements were enacted in SB 56 to help
identify the ethnic and gender diversity of members of the
judicial branch, or lack thereof, and to identify the same data
within the pool of applicants for judgeships. Assembly Bill 159
revised those reporting requirements to further require the
governor to collect and release, on an aggregate statewide
basis, demographic data provided by all judicial applicants and
all judicial appointments and nominations relative to ethnicity,
race, and gender. In addition, AB 159 requires the Judicial
Nominees Evaluation (JNE) Commission to collect and release, on
an aggregate statewide basis: (1) statewide demographic data
provided by all reviewed judicial applicants relative to
ethnicity, race, gender, and areas of legal practice and
employment; and (2) the statewide summary of JNE's
recommendations by ethnicity, race, gender, and areas of legal
practice and employment.
On February 26, 2009, the governor's office released 2008
Judicial Applicant Data which showed that 101, or 38.55 percent,
of 2008 judicial applicants were female. Sixty-six judicial
applicants, or 25.19 percent, were minorities. The governor's
office also released 2008 Judicial Appointment Data showing
that, of his appointments, 33.3 percent were female and 29.1
percent were minorities. With respect to ethnic/racial
diversity, the Daily Journal reported that the latest numbers
indicate the governor has appointed "a greater percentage of
black and Hispanic judges to the bench in 2008 than he's
averaged since the start of his administration in 2003. Last
year, 8.3 percent of those he appointed to the bench were black
and 13.5 percent were Hispanic. His appointments of candidates
from both ethnic groups average 6.7 percent and 10.1 percent,
respectively, since 2003. Schwarzenegger also appointed higher
percentages of black and Hispanic judges than the overall
percentages of applicants from both ethnic groups." While these
numbers are promising, some argue that more emphasis should be
paid to ensuring the courts better reflect the communities they
serve. For example, while Hispanic judges account for 10.1
percent of the governor's judicial appointments since 2003,
Hispanics make up 36.1 percent of California's population.
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 15 of ?
5. Opposition concerns
In a letter of opposition, the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO writes:
Due to recent reductions in the spending capacity of the
Legislature and the current quantity of judgeship allocations,
it is unnecessary to increase judgeships in the coming fiscal
year. Projections indicate that many judgeship appointments
may not be implemented for several years.
Moreover, the implications of the 2009 budget cuts are not
fully evident at this point. Allowing time for the
Legislature and state agencies to investigate these
implications will allow the Legislature to assess the impacts
of judgeship allocations in the future. Proceeding with
legislation regarding a higher quantity of judgeships at that
point in time will enable the Legislature to effectively
determine whether the effort to increase judgeship
appointments is appropriate.
In response to AFSCME's concerns, the sponsor writes:
In 2004, the Judicial Council committed to securing the most
critically needed 150 new judgeships. In 2004, the total need
for judgeships was 349. By 2006, when the first set of
judgeships was authorized, the need had grown to 361. Even
with the 100 judgeships already authorized, there is still a
need for 327 new judgeships to meet the workload in
California's courts. For so many years, in the face of
incredible population growth, there were no new judgeships
provided, or so few that the population growth overshadowed
the few judges provided. With the National Center for State
Courts, in 2001 the Judicial Council developed criteria to
determine the need for new judgeships, and has applied that
formula to all subsequent assessments of Judicial Need. The
Legislature has in fact directed the Judicial Council to
update that assessment every two years based on the most
recent three years of court filings. This legislation will
not provide the funding necessary to instill the new judges.
However, it will clearly lay out the Legislature's ongoing and
pronounced commitment to meet these critical judgeship needs.
Support : California Defense Counsel (CDC); California District
Attorneys Association; California Public Defenders Association
SB 377 (Corbett)
Page 16 of ?
(CPDA); Civil Justice Association of California; Consumer
Attorneys of California; Legal Aid Association of California
(LAAC); Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office; Riverside
County Board of Supervisors; Superior Court of California,
Contra Costa County; Superior Court of California, County of
Kern; Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County; Superior
Court of California, Monterey County; Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento; Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino; Superior Court of California, San
Diego County; Superior Court of California, County of San Luis
Obispo; Superior Court of California, County of Shasta; Superior
Court of California, County of Solano; Superior Court of
California, County of Sutter; Superior Court of California,
County of Tulare; Superior Court of California, County of
Ventura
Opposition : American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO
HISTORY
Source : Judicial Council
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : See Background.
**************