BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 1190 (Jackson)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: April 22, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
BCP
SUBJECT
Courts: Judgeships
DESCRIPTION
This bill would authorize 50 additional judges, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to the various
superior courts, pursuant to the uniform criteria approved by
the Judicial Council. This bill would also appropriate an
unspecified sum to the judicial branch for the purpose of
funding a previously authorized set of 50 judges.
This bill would additionally increase the number of justices in
the division of the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of
Appeal located in the San Bernardino/Riverside area from seven
to nine justices.
BACKGROUND
This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council, is the fifth 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. 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 and fourth bills, SB
(more)
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 2 of ?
1150 (Corbett, 2008) and SB 377 (Corbett, 2009) would have
authorized 50 new trial court judgeships but were held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
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, the funding was made contingent
upon reaching the trigger for federal stimulus funds. As the
trigger mark was not met, funding for the judgeships was not
provided.
According to the Judicial Council's November 2012 report: "[T]he
number of new judgeships needed is 13 percent greater than the
number of authorized judicial positions. When judgeships that
were authorized but never funded under AB 159 are factored into
the equation, the statewide need for new judgeships rises to
almost 16 percent and is considerably higher in individual
courts." (Jud. Council of Cal., Rep. on the Need for New
Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2012 Update of the Judicial
Needs Assessment (Nov. 2012) p. 1.)
In an effort to help reduce strain on the courts and ensure
Californians' access to justice, this bill would fund the 50
judgeships previously authorized by AB 159, authorize 50
additional judgeships, and increase the number of justices in
the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal located in
the San Bernardino/Riverside area.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. 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 50 additional judges to be allocated
to the various superior courts pursuant to uniform criteria
adopted by the Judicial Council, upon appropriation in 2007-08
fiscal year. 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
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 3 of ?
to their current complement of judicial officers. (Gov. Code
Secs. 69614, 69614.2.)
This bill would fund those previously authorized judgeships
by, instead, providing that the 50 additional judgeships shall
be allocated upon appropriation by the Legislature in the
2014-15 fiscal year. The bill would additionally appropriate
the sum of ___ dollars from the General Fund to the judicial
branch for purposes of funding the costs of new judgeships and
accompanying staff.
This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the
annual Budget Act, authorize an additional 50 judges and
provide that a judgeship shall not be created unless funding
for that purposes is provided in the annual Budget Act.
This bill would also update the references to the uniform
criteria used to allocate the additional judges funded and
authorized by this bill.
2. Existing law provides that the Court of Appeal for the
Fourth Appellate District consists of three divisions and
states that one of the divisions shall hold its regular
sessions in the San Bernardino/Riverside area and shall have
seven judges. (Gov. Code Sec. 69104.)
This bill would increase the number of judges in the San
Bernardino/Riverside area from seven to nine.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
To address the critical need for judges in California, SB
1190 would fund the judgeships previously authorized by AB
159 (Jones, 2007) and authorize another set of 50 judgeships
to be allocated according to the latest Judicial Needs
Assessment. As a result of placing those judges in courts
with the greatest need, SB 1190 takes a step towards
providing much needed relief not only to the courts but also
to the litigants.
Furthermore, the addition of two justices in Division Two of
the Fourth Appellate District will enable the Division to
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 4 of ?
process its workload more effectively and efficiently. That
increased efficiency will benefit the Division, the Courts
of Appeal as a whole, and the individuals and lawyers
seeking to have their cases addressed in a timely manner.
2. Funding prior set of 50 judges; authorizing another set of
50
Under existing law, the Judicial Council is required to report
to the Legislature on or before November 1st of every
even-numbered year on the need for new judgeships in each
superior court. The most recent report, The Need for New
Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2012 Update of the Judicial
Needs Assessment, found that although the need for judicial
officers has declined slightly since 2010, the "need for new
judgeships in the superior courts is substantial and continues
to need to be addressed to ensure the ability to provide access
to justice." (Jud. Council of Cal., Rep. on the Need for New
Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2012 Update of the Judicial
Needs Assessment (Nov. 2012) p. 3.) The report further noted
that:
Judicial officer need is calculated by multiplying each
caseweight by a three-year average of filings, divided by
the available time in minutes that judicial officers have to
hear cases. The result is expressed in full-time
equivalents (FTEs) . . . . the current statewide need for
judicial officers is 2,286 FTEs. Comparing the estimated
need to the number of authorized positions shows a deficit
of approximately 264 positions, or a 13 percent gap between
what is needed and the current number of authorized judicial
positions.
Importantly, the need for judicial officers is compared to
the number of authorized judicial positions, which actually
understates the need because of the 50 judicial positions
authorized, but never funded, in 2007 under Assembly Bill
159 (Stats. 2007, ch. 722). Subtracting these 50 positions
from the number of authorized positions brings the net need
to 314-almost 16 percent greater than the number of
authorized judicial positions. (Id., pp. 1-2.)
In response to the continued need for additional judgeships,
this bill seeks to fund the set of 50 judges previously
authorized by AB 159, authorize another set of 50 judges, and
provide that those judges shall be allocated in accordance with
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 5 of ?
the updated uniform standards approved by the Judicial Council.
While the addition of those judges would not fully address the
needs of the Judicial Branch, those additional judgeships would
help increase access to justice at a time when those who use the
court system are facing increasing delays and reductions in
services offered by local courts. The Judicial Council, in
support, notes that courts face the most critical need for
judges in some of the fastest growing counties and asserts that
the consequences of too few judicial officers include:
[A] judicial branch [that is] unable to provide an
adequate level of justice and service to the public.
Public safety is endangered when there are too few
judicial officers to hear criminal cases.
In criminal cases, heavy caseloads put pressure to plea
bargain because these cases must be dismissed if they are
not heard within specified time frames.
Constitutional protections require criminal cases to be
heard within specified deadlines. Delays in criminal cases
due to an insufficient number of judges can force delays in
civil case processing. These delays harm civil litigants
and create uncertainty and instability for the business
community.
The County of San Bernardino, in support, further notes that
"[c]ourt budget restrictions over the years have resulted in
drastic operational and service cuts throughout the County.
Over the last few years, San Bernardino County courts in Chino,
Twin Peaks, Big Bear and Needles have closed due to the funding
issues. SB 1190 would help alleviate the backlog of cases that
is slowing the wheels of justice in San Bernardino County by
providing new judges to hear those matters."
Staff also notes that the judgeships provided by this bill are
part of Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye's Blueprint for a
Fully Functioning Judicial Branch. That blueprint, introduced
on January 14, 2014, notes that "[i]n 2013, courts struggled to
maintain services while absorbing a cut of nearly a half billion
dollars" and proposes a "three-year plan to restore and improve
access to justice in California. . . ." With respect to the
judges authorized by this bill, the blueprint provides the
following funding details:
Trial Court Judgeships ($82.6 million) - In 2007, the
Legislature authorized 50 new trial court judges (AB 159,
Stats. 2007, ch. 722). However, the positions remain
unfunded and unfilled. The Judicial Council seeks funding
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 6 of ?
for the 50 positions-$82.6 million for the first year, and
$45.5 million annually in ongoing costs. . . .
Appellate Court Justices ($2.3 million) - Due to
increased workload, two additional appellate court justices
are needed in Division Two of the Fourth Appellate
District. The Judicial Council seeks funding for the two
new positions at an estimated cost of $2.3 million for the
first year, and $2.1 million annually in ongoing costs.
(Jud. Branch of Cal., Reinvesting in California's Justice
System: A Three-Year Blueprint for a Fully Functioning
Judicial Branch (Jan. 14, 2014) pp. 3-4
[as of Apr. 16, 2014].)
3. Allocation of new judgeships
In addition to funding the 50 judgeships authorized by AB 159
and authorizing another set of 50 judgeships, this bill seeks to
allocate the judgeships pursuant to the latest Judicial Needs
Assessment approved by the Judicial Council. Under existing
law, the 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.
(Gov. Code Sec. 69614 (b).)
Regarding the use of those criteria in determining judicial
need, the Judicial Council's report entitled The Need for New
Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2012 Update of the Judicial
Needs Assessment noted:
Previous years' assessments used workload standards
(caseweights) that were approved by the Judicial Council in
2001 to evaluate statewide judicial workload. In December
2011, the Judicial Council approved an updated set of
caseweights. Caseweights require periodic review because
changes in the law, technology, and practice all affect the
amount of time required for case processing. Periodic review
and, where necessary, revision of caseweights ensure that
the allocation formulas reported to the Legislature and the
Governor reflect the current amount of time required to
resolve cases.
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 7 of ?
The new caseweights are based on a 2010 time study of more
than 500 judicial officers in 15 courts. With the support of
the National Center for State Courts and the guidance of the
SB 56 Working Group, the Administrative Office of the Courts
developed the new caseweights using the same methods
employed in the 2001 study and incorporated into Government
Code section 69614(b). (Jud. Council of Cal., Rep. on the
Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2012 Update
of the Judicial Needs Assessment (Nov. 2012) p. 1.)
It should be noted that because the judicial needs have changed
over time, updating the allocation of judges authorized by AB
159 to reflect the most recent Judicial Needs Assessment (and
new caseweights) would also update where those 50 judges are to
be allocated. The Judicial Council approved that updated
allocation on December 13, 2013 based upon a recommendation from
the Senate Bill 56 Working Group. The report issued by that
working group found:
When the AB 159 judgeships were authorized by the
Legislature, statute provided that they were to be allocated
according to the Judicial Council-approved allocation list
from February 2007 (based on filings data from fiscal years
2002-2003 through 2004-2005). While the allocation list was
effectively codified in statute under the assumption that
the judgeships would be funded immediately, the funding was
never provided, and thus the judgeships could not be filled.
Since then, growth or decline in filings and application of
new caseweights approved by the Judicial Council in December
2011 to measure judge need have changed the apparent
workload needs of the courts. Using the new calculations,
some courts that would have received judgeships using the
2007 data would no longer be eligible if more recent data
are used.
. . .
[T]he courts slated to receive judgeships would change in
the following ways:
Three courts would receive fewer judgeships because their
workload has declined absolutely and/or relative to that of
other courts (Fresno, Sacramento, and Tulare).
Six courts that were slated to get judgeships under AB 159
would no longer receive one of those judgeships (Butte,
Contra Costa, Del Norte, Madera, Monterey, and Yolo). If
the 2012 Judicial Needs Assessment were used to generate a
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 8 of ?
priority list for a third group of 50 judgeships, all of
those courts, except for Contra Costa and Yolo, would
receive one of those third 50 judgeships.
Eight courts' allocations would remain the same.
Five courts that were slated to get judgeships under AB
159 would receive more judgeships (+1 or +2) if the updated
judicial needs assessment were used (Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Stanislaus).
Four additional courts would get judgeships if the updated
judicial needs assessment were implemented (Humboldt,
Imperial, Sutter, and Ventura). (Jud. Council of Cal.,
Senate Bill 56 Working Group, Rep. on the Judicial Workload
Assessment: Updated Workload Data and Allocation of New
Judgeships (Nov. 15, 2013) p. 3-5.)
Based on those new calculations, Judicial Council indicates that
the second set of 50 currently authorized judgeships that would
be funded by this bill would be allocated as follows:
---------------------------
| Court | Judgeships |
| | funded by |
| | SB 1190 |
|-------------+-------------|
|Riverside | 9|
|-------------+-------------|
|San | 9|
|Bernardino | |
|-------------+-------------|
|Kern | 3|
|-------------+-------------|
|Sacramento | 3|
|-------------+-------------|
|San Joaquin | 3|
|-------------+-------------|
|Stanislaus | 3|
|-------------+-------------|
|Fresno | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Los Angeles | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Merced | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 9 of ?
|Orange | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Placer | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Ventura | 2|
|-------------+-------------|
|Humboldt | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Imperial | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Kings | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Shasta | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Solano | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Sonoma | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Sutter | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|Tulare | 1|
|-------------+-------------|
|TOTAL |50 |
---------------------------
4. Adding two additional appellate justices
This bill would also increase the number of justices from seven
to nine in Division 2 (the San Bernardino/Riverside division) of
the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District. That
increase is the result of a recommendation by the Judicial
Council's Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC) and
the Administrative Presiding Justices Advisory Committee which
found:
Workload in Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District
has continued to increase. Based on information from the
last three years for which data is available (2010-2011,
2011-2012, and 2012-2013), Division Two has an annual
average of 1,132 appeals becoming fully briefed. Applying
the weighted formula, that results in 115 cases per justice,
far exceeding all of the other divisions. A review of data
back to 1991 shows that in 2012-2013, the number of fully
briefed appeals in Division Two was at an all time high, as
is the three-year average. The workload is continuing to
increase, and the justices cannot continue to handle this
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 10 of ?
volume of cases. Two additional justices would reduce the
weighted workload to the ideal 89 cases per justice. (Jud.
Council of Cal., Policy Coordination and Liaison Com. and
the Administrative Presiding Justices Advisory Com., Rep. on
the Judicial Council-Sponsored Legislation: Two New Court of
Appeal Justices (Jan. 10, 2014) p. 4.)
5. Author's clarifying amendments
The following amendments would codify a reference to the updated
uniform standards approved by the Judicial Council in December
of 2011, clarify the language allocating judges pursuant to the
latest judicial needs study, and add language appropriating an
unspecified amount for the purpose of funding the cost of the
two new appeals court judgeships.
Amendments :
1. On page 2, strike out line 18 and insert:
county, as approved by the Judicial Council in August 2001, and
as modified and approved by the Judicial Council in August 2004
and December 2011
2. On page 3, lines 24 through 25, strike out "on January
17, 2013"
3. On page 3, line 33, strike out "on January 17, 2013"
4. On page 4 after line 2 insert:
SEC. 6. The sum of ____ dollars ($____) is hereby appropriated
from the General Fund to the judicial branch for the purpose of
funding the cost of new appeals court judgeships and
accompanying staff pursuant to Section 69104.
Support : Civil Justice Association of California; County of San
Bernardino; San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Opposition : None Known
SB 1190 (Jackson)
Page 11 of ?
HISTORY
Source : Judicial Council
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
SB 377 (Corbett, 2009), would have, upon appropriation in the
Budget Act, established 50 new superior court judgeships. This
bill was held under submission in the Senate Committee on
Appropriations.
SB 1150 (Corbett, 2008), would have, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, established 50 new superior court judgeships in the
2009-10 fiscal year. This bill was held under submission in the
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
AB 159 (Jones, Ch. 722, Stats. 2007), authorized 50 additional
superior court judgeships and enacted additional reporting
requirements regarding the diversity of the applicant pool for
judgeships.
SB 56 (Dunn, Ch. 390, Stats. 2006), authorized 50 additional
superior court judgeships and required reporting on the
diversity of judges and the applicant pool for judgeships.
SB 1857 (Burton, Ch, 998, Stats. 2000), created 20 new trial
court judgeships and 12 new appellate court judgeships.
AB 1818 (Baca, Ch. 263, Stats. 1996), created 21 new trial court
judgeships and 5 new appellate court judgeships.
**************