BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1313
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1313 (Donnelly) - As Amended: April 29, 2013
FOR VOTE ONLY
SUBJECT : JUDGESHIPS: ALLOCATION
KEY ISSUES :
1)IN LIGHT OF A NEW ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY TO MORE FAIRLY
ALLOCATE FUNDING TO THE TRIAL COURTS, AS WELL AS THE LACK OF
ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING PROVIDED FOR IN THE BILL, IS THIS BILL
- WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL ALLOCATE
ADDITIONAL JUDGES IN A PARTICULAR MANNER - UNTIMELY?
2)MIGHT THE BILL INADVERTENTLY HINDER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL'S NEWLY ADOPTED FUNDING METHODOLOGY TO BETTER
EQUALIZE RESOURCES AMONG THE TRIAL COURTS?
SYNOPSIS
This very well-intentioned legislation seeks, according to the
author, to address "the issue of funding shortfalls in
California's severely underfunded county court systems. Cuts to
the state's justice system have left most counties underfunded,
forcing courthouse closures, staff reductions, and increased
caseloads for judges. This bill addresses the critical issue of
court funding, and therefore; access to justice." The bill does
not seek additional funding for the courts, but rather requires
that, when funding is available, the Judicial Council allocate
up to 12 additional judges each year to those counties in which
the current judicial allocations are disproportionate to the
Judicial Council's recommendation of assessed judicial need.
While it is well documented that courts throughout the state are
in need of additional resources (see for example this
Committee's informational hearing briefing paper, "The Access to
Justice Crisis Facing California Families," published last
year), this bill seeks to statutorily decide judicial resource
needs differently than the Judicial Workload Assessment just
approved by the Judicial Council last month. Additionally, it
is unclear how this bill would work - whether judges would be
AB 1313
Page 2
allocated under the bill only when new judgeships are authorized
and funded by the Legislature or when additional funding is
provided to the courts through the budget process? Is this bill
meant to change the distribution of the 50 authorized, but not
yet funded, judicial positions, any additional positions that
may be authorized and funded by the Legislature, or move
existing judges to different trial courts? In the latter case,
would judges, who are locally elected after their initial
appointment by the Governor, be reallocated from one county to
another, assuming that is permissible? More importantly, it is
unclear how this bill would work with the new trial court
funding methodology that the Judicial Council recently adopted
to more fairly reallocate resources to historically underfunded
courts. While stakeholders agree that the trial courts need
additional funding and that the under-resourced courts are the
most in need, considerable questions remain about whether this
bill, as currently drafted, will help address any of the courts'
fiscal needs.
This bill was originally heard by this Committee on May 7, 2013;
and, as a result of the questions raised by the bill, it was
held without recommendation. It has not been amended since that
time and those same questions remain and thus, the Committee may
continue to conclude that the bill is not ready to move forward.
SUMMARY : Requires allocation of additional judges to courts
with the greatest disparity between their current judicial
allocation and their assessed judicial need. Specifically, this
bill :
1)States that the Legislature finds and declares that (a) the
greatest need for judicial positions is found in moderate to
large courts in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley where
historic underfunding and rapid population growth have
outstripped judicial resources; (b) this is not an isolated
occurrence as many other counties throughout the state lack
funding and positions; (c) a lack of access to courts,
particularly for business and commercial litigation, creates a
backlog of cases and disuse of the judicial system; and (d)
disparate lack of adequate judicial representations
exemplifies a real harm to the public's safety, victims of
crime and witnesses.
2)Requires the Judicial Council, upon the availability of
funding, to allocate up to 12 additional judges each year to
AB 1313
Page 3
those counties in which the current judicial allocations are
disproportionate to the Judicial Council's recommendation of
assessed judicial need. Requires the allocation to be made
first to those counties with the greatest disparity between
their current judicial allocation and their assessed judicial
need. Provides that this allocation applies until the ratio
of judges to population in an individual county reaches 90
percent of the Judicial Council assessment of judicial need
for that county.
3)Provides that it is a top priority of the Judicial Council to
fulfill the above requirements.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the number of
judges and provide for the officers and employees of each
superior court. (California Constitution, Article VI, Section
4.)
2)Provides that the Legislature may provide for the trial courts
to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform
subordinate judicial duties. (California Constitution,
Article VI, Section 22.)
3)Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial
officers, and sets forth their duties and titles. (Government
Code Section 71622.)
4)Sets forth the specific number of trial court judges in each
county. (Government Code Section 9580 et seq.)
5)Authorizes 50 new trial court judgeships pursuant to
appropriation by the Legislature in 2006-07. Also requires
the Judicial Council to update its Judicial Needs Study every
other year, based on the most recent prior three years'
filings data, and report that information to the Legislature.
(Government Code Section 69614.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill "addresses the
issue of funding shortfalls in California's severely underfunded
county court systems. Cuts to the state's justice system have
AB 1313
Page 4
left most counties underfunded, forcing courthouse closures,
staff reductions, and increased caseloads for judges. This bill
addresses the critical issue of court funding, and therefore;
access to justice." Adds the author:
A functioning Justice System is critical to peace and
security and a key component of a civil society. And yet, in
California, the County Courts are crippled by lack of
funding. Many counties have closed court houses, laid off
administrative staff, and doubled or tripled judge caseloads.
These draconian cuts have created massive backlogs, and have
forced the courts to prioritize certain types of cases,
denying justice to those forced into the mounting backlog.
This bill is desperately needed to preserve justice and
strengthen our justice system.
This bill seeks to address funding shortfalls in
California's severely underfunded county court systems. AB
1313 is intended to bring all county court systems to
within 90% of the funding recommendations made by judicial
council. The funding allocations will be made in yearly
increases up to the amount commensurate with the dollar
value of 12 judicial positions. In San Bernardino County
for example, 90% of judicial council's funding
recommendation amounts to $49,142,362.50 and the value of a
judicial position is $838,750.1. This means that San
Bernardino County is short 58.6 judicial positions, which,
at a rate of 12 judicial positions per year, will take
approximately 5 years for the county to reach 90% of
judicial council's funding recommendations.
Need for Additional Trial Court Judges : Beginning in 2005, the
Judicial Council began a quest for additional trial court judges
to address judicial shortfalls resulting from population growth.
At that time, the Judicial Council reported that the state
faced a "judicial gap" that portended a number of disturbing
long term consequences: a significant decrease in Californians'
access to the courts; compromised public safety; an unstable
business environment; and, in some courts, enormous backlogs
that inhibit fair, timely, and equitable justice. According to
the Judicial Council, that judicial gap arose because the number
of trial court judges has not kept pace with population growth,
and the resulting increased demand on the courts. Between 1990
and 2000, for example, California's population grew by over 16
percent; yet the Judicial Council noted at the time that the
AB 1313
Page 5
number of new judgeships created by the Legislature grew by less
than three percent.
At that time, the Judicial Council pointed out that its uniform
and objective assessment criteria contained in its 2001 and 2004
Judicial Needs Studies identified a statewide need for 355 new
trial court judgeships. However, in consideration of the
state's ongoing fiscal crisis, the Council initially suggested a
need for 150 new judgeships over that next three years. In
response to the need, the Legislature passed SB 56 (Dunn), Chap.
390, Stats. 2006, which authorized, upon appropriation, 50 new
trial court judgeships. Funding for those positions was
provided in the budget that year.
The next 50 trial court judges were authorized in AB 159
(Jones), Chap. 722, Stats. 2007, but funding for those positions
has not yet been appropriated. Authorization for the last 50
judges has been attempted three times - in SB 1150 (Corbett,
2008), AB 377 (Corbett, 2009), and AB 1405 (Judiciary, 2011),
but none of those bills made it through the legislative process.
According to the Judicial Council's 2012 Update of the Judicial
Needs Assessment, adopted by the Judicial Council just last
month (December, 2013), California currently needs an additional
264 judges statewide, compared with its authorized positions
(2,286 needed judicial positions, but just 2,022 authorized
positions). However, given that the last 50 judges authorized
have not been funded, the actual judicial need, according to the
Judicial Council, is 314 new judges.
This bill, however, does not seek either additional judgeships
or funding for the courts. It simply provides that, when
funding is available, up to 12 additional (presumably this means
new, although that is not clear) judges a year should be
allocated to courts whose current judicial allocations are
disproportionate to the Judicial Council's judicial needs
assessment. It is unclear if this bill is meant to change the
distribution of the 50 authorized, but not yet funded, judicial
positions, any additional positions that may be authorized and
funded by the Legislature, or move existing judges to different
trial courts. Alternatively, this bill could be seeking to get
additional funds to some underfunded court. In any event, it is
not entirely clear what is intended by the legislation.
Historically, Courts Were County-Funded Entities and Funding
AB 1313
Page 6
Levels Varied Enormously Across the State : Historically, trial
courts in California were county entities, funded by the
counties. Funding levels varied greatly across the state.
While visiting all 58 county courts, then-Chief Justice Ronald
George discovered that chronic under-funding of many courts in
the county-based court system substantially impaired access to
justice, including "woefully inadequate facilities, insufficient
staff, unavailable interpreter services, and antiquated
information processing systems." In his first year as chief
justice, Chief Justice George twice had to seek emergency
funding from the Legislature in order to prevent the shutdown of
some county trial court operations. In 1997, after significant
problems came to light with the county-based court funding
model, the Legislature passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court
Funding Act (the Act), AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle), Chap. 850,
Stats. 1997. Under that legislation, the state assumed
responsibility for funding the courts and helping ensure equal
access to a quality judicial system statewide.
After the state took over funding, the courts received
significant funding increases and the historically underfunded
courts saw greater increases. However, most of the state
funding continued to be distributed based on the courts'
historical allocations, so courts that had been better funded by
their counties remained better funded, and courts that had been
underfunded by their counties remained underfunded.
Great Recession Forces Cuts For All Courts : Unfortunately, the
recession forced significant reductions in state General Fund
support for the courts. While "one-time" fixes, backfills and
new revenues have, to date, spared the court system the full
brunt of the General Fund reductions, trial courts have
nonetheless had their budgets cut and have had to take dramatic
and painful steps to address those cuts, including (1) closing
courthouses and courtrooms, some on selected days and others
completely; (2) laying off or furloughing employees; and (3)
reducing services, including substantial cuts to self-help and
family law facilitator assistance, and providing fewer court
reporters and court interpreters. Particularly hard hit have
been those courts that had been historically underfunded. While
the current budget provides the judiciary with an additional $63
million, some of the one-time fixes have expired. As a result,
it is anticipated that, unless there are additional funds in the
budget year, courts could need to further reduce expenditures
after terribly painful reductions in services have already
AB 1313
Page 7
occurred in some courts, and thereby reduce access to justice
still further.
Cuts Have Not Reduced Number of Judges : While courts have laid
off staff and closed courtrooms, they have not reduced their
judges. Judges cannot be laid off (although commissioners can
be and, in some courts, have been). When trial courts decide to
close courtrooms, they do so because they apparently have
determined that they can no longer afford to provide the support
staff needed for the judge and to keep the courtroom open. The
judges are still there - they just may no longer have courtrooms
over which to preside. Thus, if courts received more funding,
even without receiving additional judgeships, courtrooms would
reopen across the state. Alternatively, even if new judges were
added to the most under-resourced courts in the state, without
additional funding for full staffing, it is highly unlikely that
additional courtrooms would be able to open.
Two Efforts Are Helping to Equalize Funding to the Trial Courts :
Last year, Governor Brown and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye
jointly created the Trial Court Funding Workgroup (TCFWG) to
evaluate the state's progress in achieving the goals of the
Trial Court Funding Act, which included more uniform and
equitable funding to the trial courts to help ensure access to
justice across the state. The TCFWG, which just issued its
final report in April 2013, found that the judicial branch has
substantially complied with the objectives of the Act, but that
the principal area needing improvement is the trial court
funding allocation. The TCFWG recommended that a new allocation
methodology be developed to improve equal access to justice,
guided by "the principles of uniformity, equality,
accountability, and flexibility." However the TCFWG recognized
that funding alone does not account for all the differences in
the courts:
Ensuring that resources are allocated in a more fair and
equitable manner based on the trial courts' respective
workloads, though critical, is not the sole answer to equal
access to the courts statewide. The Director of the
Department of Finance explained . . . that the
administration saw some inconsistencies when it examined
the judicial branch budget over the past two years. The
department asked why some courts were better able to manage
the budget reductions than others. Why did some courts
have to close courtrooms or courthouses when others were
AB 1313
Page 8
able to continue public services with little or no change
or were able to provide salary increases to court
employees? . . . Court discretion and management, labor
costs, different filing practices and priorities by county
law enforcement or other county entities, and other similar
factors can make for unequal access even where there is
equity in funding. But without equity in funding there is
no opportunity for equal access.
While this workgroup worked more generally on reviewing the Act
and recommending a fairer allocation methodology, the Judicial
Council's Trial Court Budget Working Group, Funding Methodology
Subcommittee actually developed a new funding allocation
methodology and a process for its implementation. The
methodology is based on weighted case filings, as well as other
factors, such as cost-of-living differentials. The new
allocation methodology is designed to equalize funding between
the courts based on actual need. The most under-resourced
courts, which include courts in San Bernardino, Stanislaus and
Imperial Counties, would benefit most by the reallocation. The
Funding Methodology Subcommittee recommended that the new
methodology be implemented slowly, so as not to, too quickly,
deplete the already reduced resources in the better-funded
courts. To do this, the proposed new methodology would be used
for 10 percent of the allocation in 2013-14, increasing to 50
percent in 2017-18. Under the new methodology, it appears that
the new funding formula will only apply to 50 percent of the
courts' funding and the remaining 50 percent will be allocated
based on historical funding, rather than need. The Judicial
Council adopted the proposed new funding allocation methodology
and implementation schedule in April, 2013. This year's state
budget also gave the trial courts an additional $60 million, all
of which was allocated under the new funding methodology that is
more favorable to underfunded courts.
This Bill Does Not Appear to Help Get Additional Funds to the
Courts and Could Inadvertently Hinder Implementation of the
Newly Adopted Funding Methodology to Better Equalize Existing
Resources Among the Trial Courts : Despite its stated
objectives, this bill does not help get any additional judges to
the courts. It also does not get needed additional funding to
the courts. It simply requires that, upon the availability of
funding, "additional" judges be allocated in a particular way.
Thus, without new funding, this bill will not achieve its stated
goals.
AB 1313
Page 9
Moreover, this bill comes up with a new methodology for
allocating scarce resources that does not take into
consideration the thoughtful, ongoing efforts to develop a
fairer allocation methodology that considers all relevant
factors and thoughtfully phases in any changes. Should this
bill become law, it is unclear how it would work with the newly
adopted funding methodology. Would the bill only apply to
allocating new judgeships? If this is the case, could that
required judicial allocation affect the new allocation
methodology? Alternatively, could the bill be read to impact
how new funding is allocated as well? If that was the case,
could the bill actually trump implementation of the Judicial
Council's new funding allocation, particularly given that the
bill specifically provides that it should be "a top priority"
for the Judicial Council? Or if additional funding is provided
to the trial courts through the budget process, but no
additional judgeships are created or funded, does this bill
require that judges, who are locally elected after their initial
appointment by the Governor, be reallocated from one county to
another? It is presumed that the author does not intend this
result, but as drafted, it remains unclear.
Prior Legislation : SB 1857, (Burton), Chap. 998, Stats. 2000,
created 20 new trial court judgeships and 12 new appellate court
judgeships.
SB 56 (Dunn), Chap. 390, Stats. 2006, authorized, upon
appropriation, 50 new trial court judgeships. Required the
judges to be allocated in accordance with uniform standards
developed by the Judicial Council in a needs assessment study.
AB 159 (Jones), Chap. 722, Stats. 2007, authorized, upon
appropriation, another 50 new superior court judgeships. While
these positions were authorized, they have never been funded.
SB 1150 (Corbett), 2008, would have authorized another 50 trial
court judges, subject to an appropriation. That bill was held
in the Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 377 (Corbett), 2009,
would have authorized another 50 trial court judges, subject to
an appropriation. That bill was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee. AB 1405 (Judiciary), 2011, would have
would have authorized another 50 trial court judges, subject to
an appropriation. That bill was later amended to address a
different subject.
AB 1313
Page 10
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The City of Big Bear Lake supports the
bill because its "community houses one of the three courts being
closed in San Bernardino County this May. Residents of the Big
Bear Valley will be faced with significant hardships to appear
in court or fulfill their civic duty as jurors. Furthermore,
given the limited public transportation and distances exceeding
40 miles away from the main San Bernardino Courthouse, these
hardships will grow only more severe amongst our residents.
Hardships like these will not only threaten the legal rights of
our residents but will ultimately hinder courtroom access to
justice. AB 1313 is a fair bill that will provide much needed
relief to the impacted system to help provide access to justice
for all."
However, as discussed above, this bill does not seek or provide
any funding for the courts. Without such funding, this bill
will not provide any relief for the City of Big Bear Lake - or
any other jurisdiction - and its residents.
The League of California Cities writes that court closures,
brought about by reduced funding, "is a growing problems for
local government. Municipalities and citizens alike are
experiencing increased travel times over longer distances to
arrive at a court that will hear cases regarding contested
traffic tickets, for example. Cities will increasingly bear
costs associated with having peace officers travel to court for
these matters, as well as the expense of covering the testifying
officer's normal work shift during his travel time and
appearance in court."
Again, without funding, which this bill does not provide, it
will not help alleviate any of these problems. The League
recognizes this, stating that while it supports the bill, it
recognizes "that additional steps to reverse courthouse closures
and reactivate planned construction projects must occur in order
to meet the ultimate goal of the bill, that of ensuring citizens
full access to our court system."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Cities of Adelanto, Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton,
Hsperia, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, and
AB 1313
Page 11
Victorville
League of California Cities
San Bernardino Associated Governments
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334