BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 405
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 21, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 405 (Corbett) - As Introduced: February 16, 2011
SENATE VOTE: 26-12
SUBJECT : Judgeships
KEY ISSUE : should THE LEGislatURE ratify an additional 10
subordinate judicial officer converSIONS to judgeships PURSUANT
TO ab 2763 (FEUER) OF 2010 TO HELP ADDRESS ONGOING SHORTAGES OF
juvenile and family law JUDICIAL OFFICERS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill implements AB 2763 (Feuer) of last
year by ratifying an additional 10 subordinate judicial officer
conversions into family and juvenile law judgeships during the
2011-2012 fiscal year. Existing law authorizes the Judicial
Council to convert up to 16 subordinate judicial officer
positions to judgeships annually. Additionally, the Council can
specially appoint an additional 10 judges per year to fill
vacancies of subordinate judicial officer positions in family
and juvenile court positions to address ongoing shortages of
judges in family and juvenile courts. This bill is supported by
the Judicial Council and the Executive Committee of the Family
Law Section of the State Bar (FLEXCOM) and has no known
opposition.
SUMMARY : Seeks to ratify an additional 10 subordinate judicial
officer conversions to judgeships pursuant to AB 2763 (Feuer) of
2010 to help address ongoing shortages of juvenile and family
law judicial officers. Specifically, this bill :
1)Ratifies the authority of the Judicial Council to convert 10
subordinate judicial officer positions into judgeships in the
2011-12 fiscal year.
2)Provides that the conversion must result in a judge being
assigned to a family or juvenile law department previously
presided over by a subordinate judicial officer.
SB 405
Page 2
3)Provides that this conversion shall be in addition to any
action taken under existing law to convert up to 16 SJO
positions per fiscal year to judgeships.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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.) Under
existing law, the Legislature may provide for the trial courts
to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform
subordinate judicial duties. (Cal. Const., art. VI, Sec. 22.)
Existing law also authorizes the courts to appoint
subordinate judicial officers, and sets forth their duties and
titles. (Gov. Code Sec. 71622.)
2)Permits the conversion of as many as 162 subordinate judicial
officer positions into judgeships in eligible courts, not to
exceed 16 conversions each fiscal year, based on specified
criteria developed by the Judicial Council. (Gov. Code Sec.
69615.)
3)Authorizes the Judicial Council to also convert annually, in
eligible superior courts, up to 10 additional subordinate
judicial officer positions to judgeships, upon vacancy, where
the conversions will result in a judge being assigned to a
family or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by
an SJO. (Gov. Code Sec. 69615.) Existing law requires that
these conversions must be ratified by the Legislature by
statutory enactment other than the annual Budget Act. (Id.)
COMMENTS : This non-controversial bill seeks to ratify the
conversion of ten SJO positions to judgeships for juvenile and
family law positions. The author notes:
Seeking to improve the handling of family and juvenile law
cases by increasing the likelihood that these matters are
presided over by judges and not subordinate judicial
officers, SB 405 (Corbett) ratifies the authority of the
Judicial Council to convert 10 subordinate judicial officer
positions to judgeships in the 2011-12 fiscal year where
the conversion will result in a judge being assigned to a
family law or juvenile law assignment previously presided
over by a subordinate judicial officer.
For the past four years since the conversions of SJO
SB 405
Page 3
positions began, more than 16 SJO vacancies occurred in
courts eligible for conversion of these positions to
judgeships. The annual cap of 16 conversions in each
fiscal year has resulted in courts either keeping the
vacancy for an extended period, impacting the ability to
serve the public, or filling the vacant position with a new
SJO, impacting the ability to convert positions consistent
with the stated intent of the Legislature that these
positions be converted to judgeships in order to ensure
that critical case types, including family, probate, and
juvenile law matters, can be heard by judges.
While the cases coming before the Judicial Branch have
increased as a result of population growth, trial court
judgeships have not kept pace with demand. Authorized trial
courts judgeships have grown by 8.5 percent while the
population in California has grown by more than 33 percent.
Family law and juvenile law cases are among the courts'
most sensitive and often most complex cases.
The Need for More Judges: In a 2010 report the Judicial Council
analyzed the need for more judges in California's courts. The
Council compared the amount of judges necessary for court
operation with the amount of judicial positions currently
authorized and funded and determined, "�t]he total statewide
need for judicial officers is currently equivalent to 2,352
positions. Including 50 statutorily authorized but not yet
funded and therefore unfilled judicial positions, the number of
authorized judicial positions is currently 2,022. Thus, the net
need for new judgeships is 330 or, as a percentage of the total
need, the judicial branch has a 14 percent shortfall."
In order to remedy the shortfall the Legislature has authorized
100 new judges since 2006. However, because of budget
constraints only 50 of the judges have been funded. In 2007 the
Legislature passed AB 159 (Jones, 2007) which authorized the
conversion of 162 SJO positions into judgeships at the rate of
16 per year, subject to annual Legislative authorization. All
16 positions have been authorized every year since 2007.
Despite adding 114 judges to the bench since 2007 (an increase
of 8.5 percent), the Judicial Council notes these increases are
failing to keep pace with population growth (population grew 33
percent over the same time period). Until the rate of new
judges meets the rate of population growth (and accompanying
increase in litigation) the state court will continue to see its
work load per judge grow and the judicial process continue to
SB 405
Page 4
slow. While not eliminating the problem, the author notes that
this bill will increase the amount of judges on the bench and
lessen some of the backlog in the family and juvenile
departments of the Superior Court.
Increased Reliance on Subordinate Judicial Officers: According
to the Judicial Council, SJOs were originally created to assist
the courts with needs for judicial-like functions when new
judgeships were pending and not yet authorized. SJOs, unlike
judges, are appointed by county courts and are not directly
accountable to the public through the electoral process.
Nonetheless, in recent years as caseloads increased without a
corresponding increase in sitting judges, the SJO's role has
grown. Between 1989 and 1999 the number of SJOs increased 60
percent while the number of judges on the bench grew one
percent. To address the chronic shortage in sitting judges,
Superior Courts began appointing SJOs as temporary judges and
allowed them to handle core judicial duties. SJOs now handle an
array of cases from complex litigation to family law. By
converting SJOs to full judgeships the state can ensure that
more judicial officers, especially those in the sensitive family
and juvenile justice departments, are full time judges.
Ensuring the Courts with Need Get New Judges: To determine
which courts are eligible to convert SJOs to judges the Judicial
Council employs a formula used for the past decade to analyze
judicial workload. The formula takes into account: (1) court
filings 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 type of case; (3) a
ranking methodology that provides consideration for courts that
have the greatest needs relative to their current compliment of
judicial officers. Based on these rankings the Judicial Council
determines where and when new judges should be appointed. These
same standards have applied to judgeships created under the
current law allowing for the conversion of SJOs into full
judgeships in prior years.
Judges Appointed to Handle Family and Juvenile Law Matters
Should Stay Put: This bill ratifies the Judicial Council's
authority to convert 10 SJO positions in the fiscal year 2011-12
so long as the conversion "will result in a judge being assigned
to a family law or juvenile law assignment previously presided
over by a subordinate judicial officer." Given the detailed
language, any SJO position converted into a judgeship should
stay in family or juvenile court. However, no time period was
SB 405
Page 5
ever specified to determine the length of a judge's tenure in
family or juvenile court. This issue was addressed in the
Senate Judiciary Committee when the prior authorization bill (AB
2763, Feuer) was heard. In those hearings the Judicial Council
noted:
Prior to approving a request for an AB 2763 conversion from
an eligible Superior Court, the Judicial Council will
require the presiding judge of that court to send a letter
attesting to the court's intention to assign a judge to a
family or juvenile law assignment as a result of the
conversion. Pursuant to �AB 2763], the Judicial Council
will include in its biennial report to the Legislature,
beginning with the November 2012 report, a discussion of
the implementation and effect of this bill's allowance of
10 additional conversions. The Judicial Council will be
able to demonstrate in those reports that the courts are
abiding by their commitment to the Council to ensure a
judge is assigned to a family law or juvenile law
assignment previously assigned to an SJO. The Judicial
Council understands that if it appears that the Council and
the courts are not complying with the letter or the spirit
of the law, the Legislature could act to remove the
authority to convert additional positions.
Pursuant to the adoption of AB 2763, the Judicial Council
enacted guidelines for courts seeking one of the ten approved
judgeships. Under the guidelines a court seeking to convert an
SJO into a judge must "confirm in writing that the conversion
will result in a judge being assigned to a family law or
juvenile law assignment that was previously presided over by an
SJO." The sponsor notes that the Superior Court of Orange
County has already submitted such a request for the fiscal year
2011-12 should this bill be enacted. These letters aide the
Judicial Council in supervising the Superior Courts and ensuring
that the Courts are acting within the spirit of the law.
Reporting Requirements: Existing law requires the Judicial
Council to report to the Legislature by November 1 of every
even-numbered year on the general need for new judgeships based
on the aforementioned criteria and method of analysis.
Additionally, existing law requires the Judicial Council to
issue biennial reports on the effectiveness of the family and
juvenile law conversion programs authorized by this bill. These
special assessments will allow the Legislature to continue to
monitor the effectiveness of the existing program and need for
SB 405
Page 6
future judicial authorizations specifically for family and
juvenile law departments.
Prior Legislation : AB 2763 (Feuer, 2010): Authorized the
Judicial Council to convert 10 SJOs into full judges in family
or juvenile departments for the fiscal year 2010-11 and required
the Judicial Council to submit to the Legislature biennial
reports on the effectiveness of the program beginning in 2012.
AB 159 (Jones, 2007): Authorized the Judicial Council to
convert 16 SJOs into full judges in any department contingent on
annual authorization by the Legislature.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council
Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert & Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334