Existing law allocates additional judgeships to the various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council. Existing law authorizes 50 additional judges, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to the various county superior courts, pursuant to uniform criteria approved by the Judicial Council.

This bill would appropriate $8,887,800 from the General Fund for the purpose of funding 6 superior court judge positions in judgeships currently authorized by the Legislature. The bill would require the Judicial Council to determine which positions are funded, pursuant to that uniform criteria.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 16 (Roth) - Courts: judgeships

Bill Summary:

SB 16 would appropriate $36.5 million from the General Fund to fund 25 new superior court judgeships according to judicial need, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

This bill would have a one-time direct cost of $36.5 million to initially fund the judgeships with cost pressures of similar, higher amounts (depending on cost of living adjustments) annually thereafter to continually fund the new positions. (General Fund)

Background:

Existing law requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature every even-numbered year on the need for new judgeships in each superior court. In its most recent report, The Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts: Preliminary 2018 Update of the Judicial Needs, the Judicial Council finds that superior courts in 17 counties need 127 additional judicial officers to meet current workload demand. (See Table 2 below.) Currently, the superior courts in Riverside and San Bernardino counties have the highest shortfall in judicial need compared to authorized and funded positions, with the Superior Court in Riverside County needing 36 new judgeships (i.e., having a 45 percent shortage) and the Superior Court in San Bernardino County needing 38 new judgeships (i.e., having a 43 percent shortage) to meet current workload demand.

In calculating judicial need, the council conducted a time study in 2010. The findings of this study resulted in the development of a set of caseweights, which the Judicial Council approved in December 2011, that quantify the amount of case processing time needed for different case types, taking into account the full range of possible case processing outcomes and their relative probability of occurrence. The caseweights are used to estimate judicial officer need by multiplying each caseweight by a three-year rolling average of filings for that case type and dividing by the available time in minutes that judicial officers have to hear cases.

The Judicial Council notes, however, that the figures in its report may not reflect current need as accurately as possible, as the caseweights used in the assessment are based on data collected in 2010 that does not factor in new judicial workload resulting from legislative and other policy changes (e.g., Proposition 47 (2014), the increase in the number of identified mentally-ill offenders, and the expansion of court interpreters to cover more casetypes) that occurred subsequently. Nor does it factor in any current workload reductions experienced by the superior court. The Judicial Council has informed Committee staff that the council is updating the caseweights of the Judicial Workload Study and will publish an updated judicial needs assessment using the revised caseweights in late 2019.

Proposed Law:

This bill would appropriate $36.5 million from the General Fund for the purpose of funding 25 new superior court judgeships, along with expenses associated with the judicial positions in the counties to which the judicial positions are allocated, that have been authorized already under existing law. It would require the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of the funded judgeships according to the uniform standards for factually determining additional judicial need in each county.

Related Legislation:

AB 190 (Ting, 2019) and SB 73 (Mitchell, 2019), companion measures, would, among other things, allow the conversion of 16 subordinate judicial officer (SJO) positions to superior court judgeships as part of the Budget Act of 2019, pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for conversion. AB 190 and SB 73 are pending in the Assembly Committee on Budget and Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, respectively.

SB 840 (Mitchell, Ch. 29, Stats. 2018), among other things, appropriated $2.92 million for expenses associated with the two judgeships in the Superior Court in Riverside County authorized by SB 847 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 45, Stats. 2018), which increased the number of judges in the Superior Court in Riverside County from 51 to 53 and increased the number of justices in the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal in the San Bernardino-Riverside area from seven to eight.

There were a number of bills over the past two decades that extended or attempted to extend the number of authorized and/or funded judgeships in various courts. See the analysis of this bill by the Senate Committee on Judiciary for more detailed information.

Staff Comments:

This bill is not a Budget Bill, nor does it contain an urgency clause, so it would take effect on January 1, 2020 if enacted. As the state’s fiscal year begins on July 1 and since, once funded, it takes time to fill a judgeship (e.g., requiring vetting of candidates and a gubernatorial appointment), this Committee may wish to explore if the one-time appropriation proposed by this measure is an appropriate amount to fund 25 superior court judgeships.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 16 (Author:Roth)

Version: March 21, 2019

Hearing Date: April 2, 2019

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Courts: judgeships

DIGEST

This bill appropriates $37,032,500 from the General Fund for the purpose of funding 25 superior court judgeships and expenses associated with those positions and requires the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of the funded judgeships pursuant to uniform standards for factually determining judicial need in each county.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Existing law authorized the creation of an additional 50 new judgeships to be filled pursuant to budget authorization beginning May 2008 and allocated pursuant to the latest Judicial Needs Assessment approved by the Judicial Council. The funding for the authorized 50 judgeships was deferred to June 1, 2009, and then delayed again to July 2009. The funding was then made contingent upon reaching the trigger for deferral stimulus funds. As the trigger mark was not met, funding for the judgeships was not provided. In 2018, SB 847 (Ch. 45, Stats. 2018) increased the number of judges in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside from 51 to 53, leaving 48 authorized but unfunded superior court judgeships.

This bill seeks to fund 25 of the 48 authorized but unfunded superior court judgeships and expenses associated with those positions and requires the Judicial Council to allocate the funded judgeships based on its updated determination of judicial needs. The 2018 Judicial Needs Assessment concluded that 17 superior courts need new judgeships for a total of 127 new judges, with 58 percent of the need being located in San Bernardino and Riverside alone.^[1] The bill is author-sponsored and supported by the Consumer Attorneys of California, the Civil Justice Association of California, and the California Chamber of Commerce. It has no known opposition.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Authorizes 50 additional judgeships, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to the various county superior courts based on uniform standards for factually determining additional judicial need. (Gov. Code § 69614.2.)
2. Requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature on or before November 1 of every even-numbered year on the need for new judgeships in each superior court taking 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 § 69614(b) & (c).)
3. Increased the number of judges in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside from 51 to 53 and increased the number of judges in the division of the Court of Appeal for the 4th Appellate District that holds its regular sessions in the San Bernardino/Riverside area from seven to eight. (SB 847, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 45, Stats. 2018.)

This bill:

1. Appropriates $37,032,500 from the General Fund for the purpose of funding 25 new superior court judgeships and expenses associated with those positions in the counties to which those judicial positions are allocated.
2. Requires the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of the funded judgeships pursuant to uniform standards for factually determining judicial need in each county.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for bill

According to the author:

Trial Courts in Riverside need 36 full-time equivalent judicial positions (FTEs) and San Bernardino needs 38 FTEs according to the 2018 Judicial Needs Assessment by the Judicial Council. This accounts for 58 percent of the State’s entire need for judicial positions. Despite successful efforts since 2016 to add 4 judges to Riverside and 2 judges to San Bernardino,^[2] these two counties’ share of the State’s need is up from 50% of statewide need in 2016. California could fund all 48 remaining authorized judgeships, place them only in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and these two counties would still rank #1 and #2 on the 2018 Judicial Needs Assessment list. Without action, the isolated and exceptional inequity seen in this region will only grow.

The Judicial Council notes in its 2018 Judicial Needs Assessment that:

The public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every jurisdiction. The number of judgeships authorized and funded by the Legislature has not kept pace with workload in all California trial courts, leaving some with serious shortfalls […] California continues to have a critical need for judges, particularly in the Inland Empire which has shown a need for new judgeships for a sustained period of time […] Although the statewide assessed judicial need has been declining in recent years, many courts, particularly in the Inland Empire, continue to experience chronic judicial officer shortage. In 2018, two highly impacted courts, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, received two judgeships each, which were reallocated from the superior courts of Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. In addition, the Budget Act of 2018 gave the Superior Court of the County of Riverside two newly funded judgeships. Despite these changes, Riverside and San Bernardino courts continue to have a large unmet need for new judgeships.^[3]

2. 2018 Judicial Needs Assessment

The 2018 Judicial Needs Assessment concluded that 17 superior courts need new judgeships for a total of 127 new judges.^[4] The assessment determined that Riverside needs 36 FTEs and San Bernardino needs 38 FTEs, which accounts for 58 percent of the entire need statewide.^[5] The Judicial Council notes that the figures in its 2018 report “may not accurately represent the current degree of judicial need because the caseweights used in the current iteration of the judicial needs assessment are based on data collected in 2010” and do not reflect new or increased workload that resulted from legislative and policy changes that altered the workload of the judiciary since 2010. These changed include, among others, criminal justice realignment, expanded use of court interpreters, and increased use of diversion programs for juveniles and persons with mental illness.^[6] The Judicial Council also notes that their estimate does not include judicial vacancies resulting from retirements, elevations, or other changes that have not yet been filled.^[7]

3. Author’s amendment

The author proposes to amend the bill to appropriate $36,500,000 instead of $37,032,500. According to the author, this change aligns the dollar amount with the amount appropriated for the two judgeships authorized in SB 847 (Ch. 45, Stats. 2018) in the Budget Act of 2018 (SB 840, Ch. 29, Stats. 2018).^[8] The Judicial Council has stated that “the average judge is supported by approximately nine full time staff including courtroom and office clerks, research attorneys, administrative support, window and self-help center staff, and security.”^[9]

SUPPORT

California Chamber of Commerce

Civil Justice Association of California

Consumer Attorneys of California

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending:

SB 73 (Mitchell, 2019) authorizes, among other things, 16 subordinate judicial positions to be converted to judgeships in the 2019-20 fiscal year pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for converting existing subordinate judicial officer positions to superior court judgeships. This bill is currently in the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.

AB 190 (Ting, 2019), the Assembly counterpart to SB 73, similarly authorizes, among other things, 16 subordinate judicial positions to be converted to judgeships in the 2019-20 fiscal year pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for converting existing subordinate judicial officer positions to trial court judgeships. This bill is currently in the Assembly Committee on Budget.

Prior:

SB 840 (Mitchell, Ch. 29, Stats. 2018), among other things, appropriated $2,920,000 for expenses associated with the two judgeships in the Superior Court of Riverside County authorized by SB 847 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 45, Stats. 2018).

SB 847 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 45, Stats. 2018), among other things, increased the number of judges in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside from 51 to 53 and increased the number of justices in the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal located in the San Bernardino/Riverside area from seven to eight.

SB 38 (Roth, 2017), would have increased the number of judgeships from seven to eight in Division 2 of the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District and appropriated $1,202,000 from the General Fund to fund these judgeships and accompanying staff. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 39 (Roth, 2017), among other things, would have required that up to five vacant judgeships be allocated from superior courts with more authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 103 (Committee on Budget, Ch. 17, Stats. 2017), among other things, reallocated two vacant judgeships from the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara to the Superior Court of the County of Riverside and two vacant judgeships from the Superior Court of the County of Alameda to the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino.

AB 414 (Medina, 2017) was almost identical to SB 39 (Roth, 2017), but differed in that it would have allowed the Judicial Council to decide whether a judgeship should be suspended after it notifies the court with the vacant judgeship, the Legislature, and the Governor, and would have provided time and opportunity for public comment. This bill was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 1023 (Judiciary Committee, 2016), would have appropriated $5 million from the General Fund for the purpose of funding 12 of the 50 previously authorized superior court judgeships and accompanying staff. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 229 (Roth, 2015), would have appropriated $5,000,000 to fund 12 of the 50 previously authorized superior court judgeships and accompanying staff. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown because he intended to work with the Judicial Council to develop a systemwide approach to balance the workload and distribution of judgeships around the state.

SB 1190 (Jackson, 2014), would have funded previously authorized judgeships, authorized 50 additional judgeships, and increased the number of justices in the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal located in the San Bernardino/Riverside area. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 377 (Corbett, 2009), would have authorized 50 new trial court judgeships. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 1150 (Corbett, 2008), would have authorized 50 new trial court judgeships. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 159 (Jones, Ch. 722, Stats. 2007), authorized the creation of an additional 50 new judgeships to be filled pursuant to budget authorization beginning May 2008 and 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.

SB 56 (Dunn, Ch. 390, Stats. 2006), authorized the creation of 50 new judgeship positions to be filled pursuant to budget authorization beginning May 2007.

SB 1857 (Burton, Ch. 998, Stats. 2000) created 20 new superior court judgeships and 12 new appellate court judgeships.

AB 1818 (Baca, Ch. 262, Stats. 1996) created 21 new superior court judgeships and five new appellate court judgeships.

1. Judicial Council of Cal., Rep. on the Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts: Preliminary 2018 Update of the Judicial Needs (Nov. 2018), pp. 4, 8 (hereafter Report). ↑

2. These judgeships were a result of SB 847 (Ch. 45, Stats. 2018) and AB 103 (Ch. 17, Stats. 2017). ↑

3. Report, supra at 1-3. ↑

4. Id. at 4-5. ↑

5. Id. ↑

6. Id. at 2. ↑

7. Id. at 4. ↑

8. The Budget Act of 2018 (SB 840, Mitchell, Ch. 29, Stats. 2018) appropriated $2,920,000 for expenses associated with the two judgeships in the Superior Court of Riverside County, which is $1,460,000 per judgeship. ↑

9. Judicial Council of Cal., Fact Sheet New Judgeships (Dec. 2018), p. 3. ↑