CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1984

Author:(Maienschein)

As Amended Ver:June 26, 2020

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Seeks to enact the California Law Revision Commission's recommendations related to code maintenance required as a result of trial court consolidation, makes numerous revisions to, and deletions from, existing law. Specifically, this bill:

1. Eliminates several references to specific county board of supervisors overseeing court facilities, security, and operations.
2. Replaces references to various county board of supervisors, and affiliated entities, with references to courts, superior courts, or the Judicial Council of California, as appropriate.
3. Eliminates obsolete provisions of the Government Code related to the Task Force on Trial Court Employees.
4. Eliminates obsolete provisions of the Government Code related to the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities.
5. Eliminates an obsolete reference to constables in the Corporations Code.
6. Eliminates obsolete provisions in the Government Code and the Vehicle Code relating to marshals.
7. Eliminates all remaining references to now defunct municipal courts.
8. Repeals several obsolete article headings in the Government Code.
9. Provides that several fees and surcharges imposed in addition to filing fees in San Bernardino County designed to supplement the Courthouse Construction Fund are to remain in effect until January 1, 2026 and are repealed as of that date.
10. Makes several other technical and conforming changes related to court management and security to conform to existing practices and court operations.
11. Provides that if a right, privilege, duty, authority, or status, including, but not limited to, a qualification for office, salary range, or employment benefit, is based on a provision of law repealed by this bill, and if a statute, order, rule of court, memorandum of understanding, or other legally effective instrument provides that the right, duty, authority, or status continues for a period beyond the effective date of the repeal, that provision of law continues in effect for that purpose, notwithstanding its repeal by this bill.
12. Adopts blanket provisions seeking to avoid any chaptering issues with any other legislation that takes effect on or before January 1, 2021.

The Senate Amendments:

Modify the blanket provision seeking to avoid any chaptering issues with other legislation to include all legislation taking effect on or before January 1, 2021.

COMMENTS:

Between the mid-1990s and early 2000s, California enacted several sweeping reform measures that modernized the organization, governance, and operation of California's trial courts. Although it has been nearly two decades since many of these reforms took effect, this code maintenance bill reflects 66 sections of changes to existing law, proposed by the California Law Revision Commission, to ensure that the California Codes reflect the modern organization and operation of the court system. Because many of these amendments reflect general modifications to existing laws that were similar, yet enacted separately for multiple counties, this analysis seeks to merely summarize the proposed changes to the law.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, California's trial courts underwent significant reforms. California's modern superior court system is the result of three critical reforms enacted in the 1990s and early 2000s, seeking to simplify and streamline court operations. For much of the twentieth century California's trial courts were managed by individual counties and contained a diverse arrange of court branches. At one point, California had as many as seven types of inferior courts of limited jurisdiction. (Arnold, Kenneth California Courts and Judges Handbook (4th ed. 1985) San Francisco: Law Book Service Company, p. 42.) By the 1990s, it generally appears that most courts, mercifully, had consolidated operations to three types of courts: justice courts, municipal courts, and superior courts. In 1994, following a study by the California Law Revision Commission, justice courts were consolidated into municipal courts. (Sen. Const. Amend. No. 7, Stats. 1994, Res. Chap. 113.) Shortly thereafter, the California Constitution was again amended to enable courts, on a county-by-county basis, to unify into one superior court. (Sen. Const. Amend. No. 4, Stats. 1996, Res. Chap. 113.) According to the California Law Revision Commission, all 58 county courts had completed unification by 2001. (Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring (Part 6): Court Facilities, 46 Cal. L. Revision Comm'n Reports 25 (2019), at p. 30.)

Simultaneously, recognizing growing funding disparities between county courts, the state sought to unify funding and management of the county court system. In 1997, the Legislature enacted the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act and required the state to assume full responsibility for funding trial court operations. (AB 233 (Escutia & Pringle) Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997.) Finally, to effectuate the management of personnel and facilities as a result of court unification, the Legislature enacted the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (SB 2140 (Burton) Chapter 1010, Statutes of 2000), and commissioned a task force to review and recommend changes to court facility management. (SB 1732 (Escutia) Chapter 1082, Statutes of 2002.)

Despite the extensive legislative framework developed as a part of the reforms to the courts, the existing codes are littered with references to the pre-1994 structure of the courts including references to constables, municipal courts, county marshals, and county supervisors maintaining facilities. Recognizing the issue, in 2002, the Legislature tasked the California Law Revision Commission with providing recommendations to maintain the codes and remove unnecessary references to the old system. (SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary) Chapter 784, Statutes of 2002.) Several prior bills have been enacted since 2002 to enact the Commission's prior recommendations in this area, and this bill implements dozens of additional changes to the law based on the California Law Revision Commission's recommendations regarding court unification.

This bill. Prior to court unification, county governments oversaw court operations and facilities. While many issues, including judicial and court staff employment, were resolved quickly after court consolidation, due to the nature of government property construction and ownership, unwinding the role that counties held in court facilities has taken significantly more time. The role that local redevelopment agencies, another relic of California law, played in constructing many court facilities served to further complicate unwinding court facilities from local management. With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies generally completed and ending of most debt service attributed to court facilities constructed by county governments, this bill seeks to remove several references to county boards of supervisors managing various court facilities. Additionally, the bill modifies the role of county courts when facilities are still being paid for. For example, this bill provides specific authority for collection of fees in San Bernardino County in order to continuing paying obligations to the court construction fund, and sunsets those fees when the debt service is satisfied. Finally, the bill proposes to eliminate code sections mandating that county boards of supervisors provide basic court services and equipment, including jury deliberation rooms and a Bear Flag of California in every courtroom.

Additionally this bill provides for the removal of all outdated references to municipal courts, adopts a clause that prevents any right, privilege, duty, authority, or status that is conferred from a provision to be deleted from disappearing due to the potential passage of this bill, and makes numerous additional clarifying changes. Such changes include deleting provisions relating to the Task Force on Trial Court Employees and the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities, updating several code references to ensure that the Judicial Council, the policy arm of California courts, is properly described as the agency overseeing various court functions, eliminating several outdated references to court constables and marshals, positions that have given way to county sheriffs providing services in the courts, and, finally, modifying and updating several outdated cross references within the Government Code.

According to the Author:

In support of modifying the existing law to better reflect present-day trial court operations, the author states:

In the past, California had several types of trial courts (superior courts, municipal courts, and justice courts). Those courts were county-operated, funded primarily by the counties, and largely staffed with county employees. Court facilities belonged to the counties, which were responsible for building and maintaining them.

The purpose of AB 1984 is to revise provisions of law that have become obsolete as a result of trial court restructuring. This would improve the law by making the codes correctly reflect current conditions.

Arguments in Support:

The California Law Revision Commission writes:

Trial court restructuring occurred around the turn of the century. These reforms consolidated into a single superior court in each county, established a new personnel system for the trial courts, and shifted funding and responsibility for trial court operations from the county to the state.

As a result of these significant changes, many provisions throughout the code became obsolete, in whole or in part. The Commission was tasked with making recommendations to address obsolete statutory provisions related to court restructuring.

AB 1984 would implement proposed legislation from the Commission's recommendations.

Arguments in Opposition:

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

VOTES:

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-0

YES: Mark Stone, Gallagher, Chau, Chiu, Gonzalez, Holden, Kalra, Kiley, Maienschein, Obernolte, Reyes

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 18-0-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bauer-Kahan, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Megan Dahle, Diep, Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Petrie-Norris, McCarty, Robert Rivas, Voepel

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-3

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie‑Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Low, Muratsuchi, Quirk

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Grove, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Melendez, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jones

UPDATED:

VERSION: June 26, 2020

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003195

 CONSENT 

Bill No: AB 1984

Author: Maienschein (D)

Amended: 6/26/20 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-0, 7/30/20

AYES: Jackson, Borgeas, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Melendez, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 6/8/20 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Courts

SOURCE: California Law Revision Commission

DIGEST:

This bill removes obsolete terms and makes changes to reflect the modern court system by deleting outdated references to municipal courts, removing references to marshals and constables, and removing references to county boards of supervisors and replacing them with appropriate terms.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides, on and after July 1, 1997, that the state bears sole responsibility for the funding of court operations and requires the state to be responsible for the cost of court operations incurred by the trial courts. (Gov.C. § 77200)
2. Specifies, beginning July 1, 1997, that no county shall be responsible for funding court operations. (Gov. Code §§ 77201 & 70311)
3. Requires the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to determine whether any provisions of law are obsolete as a result of trial court restructuring and to recommend to the Legislature any amendments to remove those obsolete provisions. (Gov. Code § 71674)
4. Contains various provisions relating to the responsibilities of specific county board of supervisors for court facilities and operations. (Gov. Code §§ 73301-74988)
5. Establishes the Task Force on Court Facilities and requires the task force to provide reports to the Legislature regarding determinations of acceptable standards for construction, renovation, and remodeling of court facilities. (Gov.C. §§ 77650 et seq.)
6. Establishes the Task Force on Trial Court Employees to provide specified reports to the Legislature. (Gov. Code §§ 77600-77606)
7. Requires the Judicial Council to establish a task force on county law libraries to identify the needs related to county law library operations and facilities and to make recommendations for funding county law library operations, facility improvements, and expansion by January 1, 2005. (Gov. Code § 70394)
8. Authorizes San Bernardino County to charge a surcharge filing fee in addition to specified uniform filing fees to supplement the Courthouse Construction Fund, as provided. (Gov. Code § 70624)

This bill:

1. Replaces references to county board of supervisors or affiliated entities with references to courts or superior courts, as appropriate, made obsolete by the shift to state funding of trial court operations and to conform the codes to existing court practices and operations.
2. Eliminates obsolete provisions to the Task Force on Trial Court Employees, the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities, and the task force on county law libraries.
3. Eliminates references to municipal courts, which no longer exist, and obsolete provisions related to constables and marshals.
4. Repeals an existing provision of law relating to the authority of San Bernardino County to charge a surcharge filing fee on January 1, 2026.
5. Provides that if a right, privilege, duty, authority, or status is based on a provision of law repealed by this bill, and if a statute, order, rule of court, memorandum of understanding, or other legally effective instrument provides that the right, duty, authority, or status continues for a period beyond the effective date of the repeal, that provision of law continues in effect for that purpose, notwithstanding its repeal by this bill.
6. Provides that any section of any act enacted by the Legislature during the 2020 calendar year, other than a section of the annual maintenance of the codes bill or another bill with a subordination clause, that takes effect on or January 1, 2021, that amends a section being amended by this bill is to prevail over this act.

Background

This bill is the latest in a series of amendments to statutes made obsolete by trial court restructuring. California overhauled its court system through a series of reforms over 20 years ago resulting in the existing superior court system. After the reforms were implemented, references to outdated terms and policies remained throughout the codes. The Legislature, recognizing this issue, assigned the CLRC with the task of providing recommendations to update the codes in light of the reforms made and, over the years, has enacted almost all of the CLRC’s recommendations. This non-controversial bill is the latest in a series of bills to continue cleaning up the codes.

Comments

Prior to the overhaul of the trial court system, individual counties managed California’s trial courts and various branches thereof with limited jurisdiction, such as municipal courts and justice courts. In 1994, justice courts were merged with municipal courts by voter approval of SCA 7 (Dills, Resolution Chapter 131, Statutes of 1994; Proposition 191, General Election (November 8, 1994)). Several years later, the California Constitution was amended again by voter approval of SCA 4 to authorize counties to unify into one superior court (Lockyer, Resolution Chapter 36, Statutes of 1996; Proposition 220, Primary Election (June 2, 1998)). By 2001, all 58 county courts completed unification.^[1]

Significant statutory restructuring of the state’s trial court system was enacted by the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, which required that the state assume full responsibility for funding trial court operations. Following the consolidation of trial court operations, the Trial Court Unification Act unified the justice, municipal, and superior courts, unifying all of the courts or superior courts for California's 58 counties. Further restructuring continued with the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (TCEPGA), which transferred control of trial court employment to the courts. When TCEPGA was enacted, the Legislature also directed the CLRC to study the statutes affected by the acts implementing court reform and make recommendations to the Legislature to repeal statutes made obsolete by the trial court funding reform, trial court unification, and trial court employment reform (Gov.C. § 71674). The CLRC has made several recommendations over the years and almost of all them have been adopted by the Legislature.

In continuing with its mandate, the CLRC has proposed several changes to the Legislature for adoption to continue cleaning up the codes as a result of prior reforms. This bill seeks to enact the recommendations made by the CLRC in the following reports: Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring (Part 6): Court Facilities (May 2019), Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Task Force on Trial Court Employees (February 2019), Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Obsolete References to Marshals (September 2019), Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Obsolete “Constable” References (October 2018).^[2]

Deleting outdated references to municipal courts

A majority of the changes made by the bill delete outdated references to municipal courts, which no longer exist since they were unified with the superior courts.^[3] Most of these deletions are found in the repeal of various articles in Chapter 10 of Title 8 of the Government Code. Since municipal courts were governed by counties prior to unification, the codes contained separate provisions governing municipal courts for each county. These provisions include specific references to the operation and timing of court sessions; however, the CLRC found the provisions to be obsolete due to the fact the Legislature enacted Section 69470 of the Government Code that authorizes superior courts to determine the operation and timing of court sessions and it expressly applies over any other provision of law.^[4]

Clarifying role of county board of supervisors and removing obsolete references

This bill also updates references to county board of supervisors being responsible for court facilities since these facilities now belong to the state. For example, changes are made to statutes that specify where court facilities are to be located in certain counties and mandates on the county board of supervisors to provide jury deliberation rooms and the Flag of the United States of America and the Bear Flag of California.^[5] This bill changes references to the superior court or court where appropriate and deletes references that are obsolete. The CLRC noted changes needed to some county-specific provisions relating to the Courthouse Construction Fund and recommended the repeal of two county-specific statutes that the CLRC noted were obsolete.^[6] The CLRC recommended repealing a county-specific provision related to the authority of San Bernardino County to charge a surcharge filing fee to be deposited into the Courthouse Construction Fund on January 1, 2026, because there are ongoing discussions between the county and Judicial Council and adding the repeal clause ensures that there is time to allow for a resolution to any outstanding issues but also ensures that the section is eventually repealed.^[7]

Other clarifying changes

In addition to the above described changes, this bill deletes provisions relating to the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities^[8] and the Task Force on Trial Court Employees,^[9] as both of these task forces completed their required work and submitted all reports due. The CLRC also recommends repealing the Task Force on County Law Libraries as it no longer exists and its report was due in 2005.^[10] This bill also removes outdated references to constables and marshals, ^[11] which provided security to justice courts and municipal courts respectively, updates various cross references, and provides language that this bill will not chapter out any other bill, as specified.

This bill seems to merely delete obsolete provisions from existing law, which is bolstered by the review of the CLRC and the conclusions in the CLRC reports. However, in the off-chance that this bill repeals a non-obsolete provision of law, this bill specifically provides that a person’s rights are protected and continue into effect notwithstanding the repeal.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/20)

California Law Revision Commission (source)

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/20)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

The purpose of AB 1984 is to revise provisions of law that have become obsolete as a result of trial court restructuring. This would improve the law by making the codes correctly reflect current conditions.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 6/8/20

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Low, Muratsuchi, Quirk

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/14/20 12:31:10

**** END ****

1. California Trail Courts Effective Dates of Unification, Cal. Courts (Jan. 29, 2001) available at https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/unidate.pdf (as of Jul. 5, 2020) ↑

2. All four reports are available at http://clrc.ca.gov/J1405.html (as of Jul. 5, 2020). ↑

3. Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring (Part 6): Court Facilities, 46 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 25 (2019). ↑

4. Id. at 40. ↑

5. Id. at 41 & 52. ↑

6. Id. at 55-56. ↑

7. Id. at 56. ↑

8. Id. at 49. ↑

9. Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Task Force on Trial Court Employees, 46 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 1 (2019). ↑

10. Fn. 5 supra at 57-58. ↑

11. Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Obsolete References to Marshals, 46 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 105 (2019); Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Obsolete “Constable” References, 45 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 441 (2018). ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1984 (Author:Maienschein)

Version: June 26, 2020

Hearing Date: July 30, 2020

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Courts

DIGEST

This bill is the latest in a series of amendments to statutes made obsolete by trial court restructuring.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

California overhauled its court system through a series of reforms over 20 years ago resulting in the existing superior court system. After the reforms were implemented, references to outdated terms and policies remained throughout the codes. The Legislature, recognizing this issue, assigned the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) with the task of providing recommendations to update the codes in light of the reforms made and, over the years, has enacted almost all of the CLRC’s recommendations. This non-controversial bill is the latest in a series of bills to continue cleaning up the codes. The bill, among other things, removes obsolete terms and makes changes to reflect the modern court system by deleting outdated references to municipal courts, removing references to marshals and constables, and removing references to county boards of supervisors and replacing them with appropriate terms.

The bill is author sponsored. There is no known support or opposition.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Provides, on and after July 1, 1997, that the state bears sole responsibility for the funding of court operations and requires the state to be responsible for the cost of court operations incurred by the trial courts. (Gov.C. § 77200.)
2. Specifies, beginning July 1, 1997, that no county shall be responsible for funding court operations. (Gov. Code §§ 77201 & 70311.)
3. Requires the CLRC to determine whether any provisions of law are obsolete as a result of trial court restructuring and to recommend to the Legislature any amendments to remove those obsolete provisions. (Gov.C. § 71674.)
4. Contains various provisions relating to the responsibilities of specific county board of supervisors for court facilities and operations. (Gov.C. §§ 73301-74988.)
5. Establishes the Task Force on Court Facilities and requires the task force to provide reports to the Legislature regarding determinations of acceptable standards for construction, renovation, and remodeling of court facilities. (Gov.C. §§ 77650 et seq.)
6. Establishes the Task Force on Trial Court Employees to provide specified reports to the Legislature. (Gov. C. §§ 77600-77606)
7. Requires the Judicial Council to establish a task force on county law libraries to identify the needs related to county law library operations and facilities and to make recommendations for funding county law library operations, facility improvements, and expansion by January 1, 2005. (Gov.C. § 70394.)
8. Authorizes San Bernardino County to charge a surcharge filing fee in addition to specified uniform filing fees to supplement the Courthouse Construction Fund, as provided. (Gov.C. § 70624.)

This bill:

1. Replaces references to county board of supervisors or affiliated entities with references to courts or superior courts, as appropriate, made obsolete by the shift to state funding of trial court operations and to conform the codes to existing court practices and operations.
2. Eliminates obsolete provisions to the Task Force on Trial Court Employees, the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities, and the task force on county law libraries.
3. Eliminates references to municipal courts, which no longer exist, and obsolete provisions related to constables and marshals.
4. Repeals an existing provision of law relating to the authority of San Bernardino County to charge a surcharge filing fee on January 1, 2026.
5. Provides that if a right, privilege, duty, authority, or status is based on a provision of law repealed by this bill, and if a statute, order, rule of court, memorandum of understanding, or other legally effective instrument provides that the right, duty, authority, or status continues for a period beyond the effective date of the repeal, that provision of law continues in effect for that purpose, notwithstanding its repeal by this bill.
6. Provides that any section of any act enacted by the Legislature during the 2020 calendar year, other than a section of the annual maintenance of the codes bill or another bill with a subordination clause, that takes effect on or January 1, 2021, that amends a section being amended by this bill is to prevail over this act.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

The purpose of AB 1984 is to revise provisions of law that have become obsolete as a result of trial court restructuring. This would improve the law by making the codes correctly reflect current conditions.

2. Trial court restructuring and prior CLRC recommendations to update codes

Prior to the overhaul of the trial court system, individual counties managed California’s trial courts and various branches thereof with limited jurisdiction, such as municipal courts and justice courts. In 1994, justice courts were merged with municipal courts by voter approval of Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 7 (Dills, Res. Ch. 131, Stats. 1994; Prop. 191, gen. elec. (Nov. 8, 1994)). Several years later, the California Constitution was amended again by voter approval of Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4 to authorize counties to unify into one superior court (Lockyer, Res. Ch. 36, Stats. 1996; Prop. 220, prim. elec. (Jun. 2, 1998)). By 2001, all 58 county courts completed unification.^[1]

Significant statutory restructuring of the state’s trial court system was enacted by the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, which required that the state assume full responsibility for funding trial court operations. Following the consolidation of trial court operations, the Trial Court Unification Act unified the justice, municipal, and superior courts, unifying all of the courts or superior courts for California's 58 counties. Further restructuring continued with the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (TCEPGA), which transferred control of trial court employment to the courts. When TCEPGA was enacted, the Legislature also directed the CLRC to study the statutes affected by the acts implementing court reform and make recommendations to the Legislature to repeal statutes made obsolete by the trial court funding reform, trial court unification, and trial court employment reform. (Gov.C. § 71674). The CLRC has made several recommendations over the years and almost of all them have been adopted by the Legislature.^[2]

3. Recommendations of the CLRC being adopted by this bill

In continuing with its mandate, the CLRC has proposed several changes to the Legislature for adoption to continue cleaning up the codes as a result of prior reforms. This bill seeks to enact the recommendations made by the CLRC in the following reports: Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring (Part 6): Court Facilities (May 2019), Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Task Force on Trial Court Employees (Feb. 2019), Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Obsolete References to Marshals (Sept. 2019), Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Obsolete “Constable” References (Oct. 2018).^[3]

1. Deleting outdated references to municipal courts

A majority of the changes made by the bill delete outdated references to municipal courts, which no longer exist since they were unified with the superior courts.^[4] Most of these deletions are found in the repeal of various articles in Chapter 10 of Title 8 of the Government Code. Since municipal courts were governed by counties prior to unification, the codes contained separate provisions governing municipal courts for each county. These provisions include specific references to the operation and timing of court sessions; however, the CLRC found the provisions to be obsolete due to the fact the Legislature enacted Section 69470 of the Government Code that authorizes superior courts to determine the operation and timing of court sessions and it expressly applies over any other provision of law.^[5]

1. Clarifying role of county board of supervisors and removing obsolete references

The bill also updates references to county board of supervisors being responsible for court facilities since these facilities now belong to the state. For example, changes are made to statutes that specify where court facilities are to be located in certain counties and mandates on the county board of supervisors to provide jury deliberation rooms and the Flag of the United States of America and the Bear Flag of California. ^[6] The bill changes references to the superior court or court where appropriate and deletes references that are obsolete. The CLRC noted changes needed to some county-specific provisions relating to the Courthouse Construction Fund and recommended the repeal of two county-specific statutes that the CLRC noted were obsolete.^[7] The CLRC recommended repealing a county-specific provision related to the authority of San Bernardino County to charge a surcharge filing fee to be deposited into the Courthouse Construction Fund on January 1, 2026, because there are ongoing discussions between the county and Judicial Council and adding the repeal clause ensures that there is time to allow for a resolution to any outstanding issues but also ensures that the section is eventually repealed.^[8]

1. Other clarifying changes

In addition to the above described changes, the bill deletes provisions relating to the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities^[9] and the Task Force on Trial Court Employees,^[10] as both of these task forces completed their required work and submitted all reports due. The CLRC also recommends repealing the Task Force on County Law Libraries as it no longer exists and its report was due in 2005.^[11] The bill also removes outdated references to constables and marshals, ^[12] which provided security to justice courts and municipal courts respectively, updates various cross references, and provides language that the bill will not chapter out any other bill, as specified.

The bill seems to merely delete obsolete provisions from existing law, which is bolstered by the review of the CLRC and the conclusions in the CLRC reports. However, in the off-chance that the bill repeals a non-obsolete provision of law, the bill specifically provides that a person’s rights are protected and continue into effect notwithstanding the repeal.

SUPPORT

None known

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

None known

Prior Legislation:

AB 1529 (Dickinson, Ch. 470, Stats. 2012) enacted recommendations by the CLRC to correct obsolete statutes as a result of trial court restructuring.

AB 2767 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 212, Stats. 2010) enacted changes to various provisions of law, including recommendations by the CLRC to correct obsolete statutes as a result of trial court restructuring.

AB 2166 (Tran, 2008) would have enacted CLRC recommendations regarding appellate procedure for appeals from orders of the superior courts on motions to vacate bail forfeitures. The bill failed to pass out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

SB 1182 (Ackerman, Ch. 56, Stats. 2008) enacted recommendations by the CLRC to correct obsolete statutes as a result of trial court restructuring.

SB 649 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 43, Stats. 2007) enacted recommendations by the CLRC to correct obsolete statutes as a result of trial court restructuring.

SB 79 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 149, Stats. 2003) enacted recommendations by the CLRC to correct obsolete statutes as a result of trial court restructuring.

SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 784, Stats. 2002) enacted recommendations by the CLRC to correct obsolete statutes as a result of trial court restructuring.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 18, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

**************

1. California Trail Courts Effective Dates of Unification, Cal. Courts (Jan. 29, 2001) available at https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/unidate.pdf (as of Jul. 5, 2020) ↑

2. See Prior Legislation. ↑

3. All four reports are available at http://clrc.ca.gov/J1405.html (as of Jul. 5, 2020). ↑

4. Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring (Part 6): Court Facilities, 46 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 25 (2019). ↑

5. Id. at 40. ↑

6. Id. at 41 & 52. ↑

7. Id. at 55-56. ↑

8. Id. at 56. ↑

9. Id. at 49. ↑

10. Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Task Force on Trial Court Employees, 46 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 1 (2019). ↑

11. Fn. 5 supra at 57-58. ↑

12. Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Obsolete References to Marshals, 46 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 105 (2019); Trial Court Restructuring Clean-Up: Obsolete “Constable” References, 45 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 441 (2018). ↑

Date of Hearing: June 2, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1984

Author:(Maienschein) – As Introduced Ver:January 23, 2020

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill revises and deletes several sections of code considered outdated after trial court consolidation.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible costs to Judicial Council and the trial courts as this bill only deletes language no longer applicable since trial court consolidation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

The purpose of AB 1984 is to revise provisions of law that have become obsolete as a result of trial court restructuring. This would improve the law by making the codes correctly reflect current conditions.

1. Trial Court Consolidation. Between the mid-1990s and early 2000s, California enacted several sweeping reforms that modernized the organization, governance and operation of California’s trial courts. Although it has been nearly two decades since many of these reforms took effect, this code maintenance bill reflects 66 sections of changes to existing law, proposed by the California Law Revision Commission, to ensure that the California Codes reflect the modern organization and operation of the court system.
   
   In 1997, the Legislature enacted the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act and required the state to assume full responsibility for funding trial court operations. This bill eliminates numerous code sections no longer relevant since the state took over responsibility for the trial courts, including code sections mandating county boards of supervisors provide basic court services and equipment, including jury deliberation rooms and a Bear Flag of California in every courtroom.
2. Prior Legislation. SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2002, deleted or amended statutory references made obsolete by trial court restructuring.

Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 10, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1984

Author:(Maienschein) – As Introduced Ver:January 23, 2020

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: Courts: trial court consolidation

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION TO UPDATE A NUMBER OF CODE SECTIONS RELATING TO TRIAL COURTS THAT ARE OBSOLETE AS A RESULT OF THE UNIFICATION OF CALIFORNIA’S TRIAL COURTS?

SYNOPSIS

This non-controversial measure enacts several dozen changes to existing law to implement the recommendations of the California Law Revision Commission, intended to modernize the codes to better reflect the operational realities of California’s court system after trial court consolidation. Although the legislative efforts to consolidate trial court operations and provide for statewide funding of the superior courts were enacted nearly two decades ago, dozens of sections of existing law continue to reflect a bygone era of court operations. Accordingly, after being tasked by the Legislature with determining what sections of law must be amended to reflect modern practices, the California Law Revision Commission has enacted several reports outlining sections of the code that must be deleted or substantially amended to reflect existing court operations. This 66-section measure seeks to adopt dozens of these reforms. Of particular note, this bill will delete outdated references to justice courts and municipal courts, as well as removing references to county boards of supervisors and replacing them with the Judicial Council of California, where appropriate. This bill makes numerous additional changes, many of which are non-substantive in light of other existing laws, to ensure that the outdated code sections are modernized or eliminated. Although much of the content of this bill was drafted by the California Law Revision Commission, as currently in print, this bill has no known support or opposition.

SUMMARY: Seeks to enact the California Law Revision Commission’s recommendations related to code maintenance required as a result of trial court consolidation, makes numerous revisions to, and deletions from, existing law. Specifically, this bill:

1. Eliminates several references to specific county board of supervisors overseeing court facilities, security, and operations.
2. Replaces references to various county board of supervisors, and affiliated entities, with references to courts, superior courts, or the Judicial Council of California, as appropriate.
3. Eliminates obsolete provisions of the Government Code related to the Task Force on Trial Court Employees.
4. Eliminates obsolete provisions of the Government Code related to the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities.
5. Eliminates an obsolete reference to constables in the Corporations Code.
6. Eliminates obsolete provisions in the Government Code and the Vehicle Code relating to marshals.
7. Eliminates all remaining references to now defunct municipal courts.
8. Repeals several obsolete article headings in the Government Code.
9. Provides that several fees and surcharges imposed in addition to filing fees in San Bernardino County designed to supplement the Courthouse Construction Fund are to remain in effect until January 1, 2026 and are repealed as of that date.
10. Makes several other technical and conforming changes related to court management and security to conform to existing practices and court operations.
11. Provides that if a right, privilege, duty, authority, or status, including, but not limited to, a qualification for office, salary range, or employment benefit, is based on a provision of law repealed by this bill, and if a statute, order, rule of court, memorandum of understanding, or other legally effective instrument provides that the right, duty, authority, or status continues for a period beyond the effective date of the repeal, that provision of law continues in effect for that purpose, notwithstanding its repeal by this bill.
12. Adopts blanket provisions seeking to avoid any chaptering issues with any other legislation that takes effect on or before July 1, 2021.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the California Law Revision Commission to determine whether any provisions of law are obsolete as a result of the several court reform measures and to recommend to the Legislature any amendments to remove those obsolete provisions. (Government Code Section 71674.)
2. Provides that commencing July 1, 1997, and each year thereafter, no county or city and county is responsible to provide funding for “court operations,” as defined. (Government Code Section 70311.)
3. Provides that, notwithstanding 2), or any other law, the findings of the Task Force on Court Facilities must not be considered or entered into evidence in any action brought by trial courts to compel a county to provide facilities that the trial court contends are necessary and suitable. (Government Code Section 77655.)
4. Established the Task Force on Court Facilities and required the task force to provide several reports to the Legislature regarding determinations of acceptable standards for construction, renovation, and remodeling of court facilities between 1999 and 2001. (Government Code Sections 77650 et seq.)
5. Provides that humane officers associated with humane societies are to take the oath of office for constables or other peace officers. (Corporations Code Section 14502 (c).)
6. Enables the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County and the City Council of the City of San Diego to create by joint powers agreement, the San Diego Courthouse, Jail, and Related Facilities Development Agency. (Government Code Section 6520.)
7. Requires judges of the superior court to have chambers at the county seat, and requires those chambers to be open for the transaction of judicial business on days in which an election is held throughout the state. (Government Code Section 24261.)
8. Enables boards of supervisors to acquire land and buildings, or lease buildings, for municipal courts. (Government Code Section 25351.3)
9. Establishes, via the Contra Costa County Court Services Consolidation Act of 1988, rules for the provision of marshals to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. (Government Code Section 26625 et seq.)
10. Provides that all county services provided by employees of the county marshal’s office is to be consolidated in the county sheriff’s office and seniority status for time worked is to transfer to the sheriff’s office. (Government Code Section 26639.3.)
11. Provides that in any county with a population of 3 million or greater the board of supervisors may, with respect to any dining facility, or garage or other vehicular parking facility, in or adjacent to the county courthouse and other court buildings in said county, provide the courts occupying such buildings and the judges, officers of the court, attachés and jurors quartered therein, with the same accommodations as to use, access, occupancy and, excepting jurors, with the same participation in the operational administration thereof, as are furnished, made available to, or enjoyed by the departments, officers and employees of the county with respect to similar facilities in or adjacent to other county buildings. (Government Code Section 68073.5.)
12. Requires the board of supervisors of a county to purchase and provide for the installation of the Flag of the United States and the Bear Flag of California in each superior courtroom in the county. (Government Code Section 69504.)
13. Requires the Judicial Council to establish a task force on county law libraries and tasks the staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts with identifying the needs related to county law library operations and facilities, and identifying and making recommendations for funding county law library operations, facility improvements, and expansion by January 1, 2005. (Government Code Section 70394.)
14. Permits, in addition to the uniform filing fee authorized pursuant to existing law, the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County to impose a surcharge not to exceed thirty-five dollars ($35) for the filing in superior court of specified court documents to supplement the Courthouse Construction Fund. (Government Code Section 70624.)
15. Requires county boards of supervisors to provide suitable quarters for the municipal courts, including heating, lighting, and janitorial services, and shall supply them with furniture, books, and supplies necessary for carrying out their duties, including supplies and equipment for the preparation and maintenance of duplicate records of the court or a division of the court when sessions are held at more than one place. (Government Code Section 71002.)
16. Governs the court–related services provided by the marshal’s office in Shasta County. (Government Code Section 72116.)
17. Provides for specific rules for governing the municipal courts in different California counties. (Government Code Sections 73301-74988.)
18. Provides that in any county with a population of 250,000 or more persons, publicly owned vehicles operated by peace officer personnel of a marshal’s department, when actually being used in the enforcement of the orders of any court, including, but not limited to, the transportation of prisoners, may display flashing amber warning lights to the rear when such vehicles are necessarily parked upon a roadway and such parking constitutes a hazard to other motorists. (Vehicle Code Section 25254.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: Between the mid-1990s and early 2000s, California enacted several sweeping reform measures that modernized the organization, governance, and operation of California’s trial courts. Although it has been nearly two decades since many of these reforms took effect, this code maintenance bill reflects 66 sections of changes to existing law, proposed by the California Law Revision Commission, to ensure that the California Codes reflect the modern organization and operation of the court system. Because many of these amendments reflect general modifications to existing laws that were similar, yet enacted separately for multiple counties, this analysis seeks to merely summarize the proposed changes to the law.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, California’s trial courts underwent significant reforms. California’s modern superior court system is the result of three critical reforms enacted in the 1990s and early 2000s, seeking to simplify and streamline court operations. For much of the twentieth century California’s trial courts were managed by individual counties and contained a diverse arrange of court branches. At one point, California had as many as seven types of inferior courts of limited jurisdiction. (Arnold, Kenneth California Courts and Judges Handbook (4th ed. 1985) San Francisco: Law Book Service Company, p. 42.) By the 1990s, it generally appears that most courts, mercifully, had consolidated operations to three types of courts: justice courts, municipal courts, and superior courts. In 1994, following a study by the California Law Revision Commission, justice courts were consolidated into municipal courts. (Sen. Const. Amend. No. 7, Stats. 1994 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) Res. Chap. 113.) Shortly thereafter, the California Constitution was again amended to enable courts, on a county-by-county basis, to unify into one superior court. (Sen. Const. Amend. No. 4, Stats. 1996) Res. Chap. 113.) According to the California Law Revision Commission, all 58 county courts had completed unification by 2001. (Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring (Part 6): Court Facilities, 46 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 25 (2019), at p. 30.)

Simultaneously, recognizing growing funding disparities between county courts, the state sought to unify funding and management of the county court system. In 1997, the Legislature enacted the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act and required the state to assume full responsibility for funding trial court operations. (AB 233 (Escutia & Pringle) Chap. 850, Stats. 1997.) Finally, to effectuate the management of personnel and facilities as a result of court unification, the Legislature enacted the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (SB 2140 (Burton) Chap. 1010, Stats. 2000), and commissioned a task force to review and recommend changes to court facility management. (SB 1732 (Escutia) Chap. 1082, Stats. 2002.)

Despite the extensive legislative framework developed as a part of the reforms to the courts, the existing codes are littered with references to the pre-1994 structure of the courts including references to constables, municipal courts, county marshals, and county supervisors maintaining facilities. Recognizing the issue, in 2002, the Legislature tasked the California Law Revision Commission with providing recommendations to maintain the codes and remove unnecessary references to the old system. (SB 1316 (Committee on Judiciary) Chap. 784, Stats. 2002.) Several prior bills have been enacted since 2002 to enact the Commission’s prior recommendations in this area, and this bill implements dozens of additional changes to the law based on the California Law Revision Commission’s recommendations regarding court unification.

Author statement. In support of modifying the existing law to better reflect present-day trial court operations, the author states:

In the past, California had several types of trial courts (superior courts, municipal courts, and justice courts). Those courts were county-operated, funded primarily by the counties, and largely staffed with county employees. Court facilities belonged to the counties, which were responsible for building and maintaining them.

The purpose of AB 1984 is to revise provisions of law that have become obsolete as a result of trial court restructuring. This would improve the law by making the codes correctly reflect current conditions.

Eliminating or clarifying the role of county supervisors. Prior to court unification, county governments oversaw court operations and facilities. While many issues, including judicial and court staff employment, were resolved quickly after court consolidation, due to the nature of government property construction and ownership, unwinding the role that counties held in court facilities has taken significantly more time. The role that local redevelopment agencies, another relic of California law, played in constructing many court facilities served to further complicate unwinding court facilities from local management. With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies generally completed and ending of most debt service attributed to court facilities constructed by county governments, this bill seeks to remove several references to county boards of supervisors managing various court facilities. Additionally, the bill modifies the role of county courts when facilities are still being paid for. For example, this bill provides specific authority for collection of fees in San Bernardino County in order to continuing paying obligations to the court construction fund, and sunsets those fees when the debt service is satisfied. Finally, the bill proposes to eliminate code sections mandating that county boards of supervisors provide basic court services and equipment, including jury deliberation rooms and a Bear Flag of California in every courtroom.

Removing outdated references to municipal courts. One of the largest segments of existing law deemed outdated by the California Law Revision Commission related to court facilities and operations for municipal court districts. Although many of the laws regarding municipal courts are generally similar state wide, due to the need to include county-specific provisions, code language governing municipal courts was enacted separately for most California counties. Accordingly, while this bill may appear to eliminate a significant portion of existing law by eliminating most of Chapter 10 of Title 8 of the Government Code, in reality the bill simply deletes similar language for nearly all of California’s 58 counties. Although these provisions included specific references to the timing and operation of court sessions, the California Law Revision Commission determined these provisions to be obsolete once the Legislature passed a broader statutory framework for the operation of the unified superior courts. (Statutes Made Obsolete by Trial Court Restructuring (Part 6): Court Facilities, supra, at p. 40.)

Providing for legal protections for employees and other interested parties. This bill appears to simply amend or delete obsolete law. Nonetheless, despite the review by the California Law Revision Commission, the author prudently added a clause that prevents any right, privilege, duty, authority, or status that is conferred from a provision to be deleted from disappearing due to the potential passage of this bill. While the likelihood of such an issue arising is slim, this provision ensures that no person’s rights are impacted by a code clean-up measure.

Additional clarifying changes. Although the overwhelming majority of this bill is focused on removing outdated references to municipal and justice courts and further removing county boards of supervisors from duties related to the courts, several other minor clarifying amendments are made. First the bill deletes provisions relating to the Task Force on Trial Court Employees and the Task Force on Trial Court Facilities. Both task forces have long since concluded their business assisting in unifying the courts under state control. Additionally, the bill updates several code references to ensure that the Judicial Council, the policy arm of California courts, is properly described as the agency overseeing various court functions. This bill also proposes to eliminate several outdated references to court constables and marshals, positions that have given way to county sheriffs providing services in the courts. Finally, the bill modifies and updates several outdated cross references within the Government Code and adds a blanket chaptering out clause to ensure that this bill will not chapter out any other legislation should it be enacted.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334