BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 405
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 405 (Corbett)
As Introduced February 16, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :26-12
JUDICIARY 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Huber, Huffman, Monning, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Wieckowski | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Wagner, Beth Gaines, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Jones | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to ratify an additional 10 subordinate judicial
officer (SJO) conversions to judgeships pursuant to AB 2763
(Feuer), Chapter 690, Statutes 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
SJO 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.
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. Under existing law, the Legislature may
SB 405
Page 2
provide for the trial courts to appoint officers such as
commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties.
Existing law also authorizes the courts to appoint SJOs, and
sets forth their duties and titles.
2)Permits the conversion of as many as 162 SJO positions into
judgeships in eligible courts, not to exceed 16 conversions
each fiscal year, based on specified criteria developed by the
Judicial Council.
3)Authorizes the Judicial Council to also convert annually, in
eligible superior courts, up to 10 additional SJO 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. Existing law requires
that these conversions must be ratified by the Legislature by
statutory enactment other than the annual Budget Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations, annual
cost of up to $270,000 for conversion of up to 10 SJOs to
judgeships. For each conversion of an SJO position to a
judgeship, the additional annual cost, based on salary
differences between the two positions, is approximately $27,000.
The Judicial Council indicates that these additional costs will
be funded through a reallocation of monies in the Trial Court
Trust Fund.
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 positions began, more than 16 SJO vacancies
SB 405
Page 3
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.
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), Chapter 722, Statutes of
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%), the Judicial Council
SB 405
Page 4
notes these increases are failing to keep pace with population
growth (population grew 33% 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 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.
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%while the number of judges on the bench grew 1% .
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.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0002188
SB 405
Page 5