Existing law allocates additional judgeships to various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council.

This bill would authorize 26 additional judgeships, subject to appropriation. This bill would require the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of those positions, pursuant to that uniform criteria.

Existing law allocates additional judgeships to various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council.

This bill would authorize 26 additional judgeships, subject to appropriation. This bill would require the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of those positions, pursuant to that uniform criteria.

Existing law allocates additional judgeships to various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council.

This bill would authorize 26 additional judgeships, subject to appropriation. This bill would require the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of those positions, pursuant to that uniform criteria.

Existing law allocates additional judgeships to various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council.

This bill would authorize 26 additional judgeships, subject to appropriation. This bill would require the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of those positions, pursuant to that uniform criteria.

Existing law allocates additional judgeships to various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council.

This bill would authorize 26 additional judgeships, subject to appropriation. This bill would require the Judicial Council to determine the allocation of those positions, pursuant to that uniform criteria.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 75

Author:(Roth)

As Amended Ver:March 20, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Authorizes 26 new judicial positions for the superior courts.

Major Provisions

1. Authorizes 26 additional superior court judgeships.
2. Specifies that the additional judgeships authorized by 1), above, are contingent on appropriation.
3. Provides that the judgeships authorized by 1), above, are to be allocated to the various county superior courts, in accordance with the uniform criteria set forth in the Judicial Council's Judicial Needs Study.

COMMENTS

Due to the significant budget constraints that plagued California for much of the early-2010s, the appointment of new judges to California courts did not keep pace with the state's growing population. This problem has been especially acute in the faster growing inland areas of California. To begin to address the issue, in 2019, the Legislature funded 25 new judgeships. Last year, the Legislature approved an additional 23 new positions in the budget. Although caseloads have decreased across many courts, the author believes additional judges are still needed, especially in the Inland Empire.

Until the late 1990s, trial courts in California were county entities, funded by the counties. Accordingly, funding levels varied dramatically between counties resulting in different levels of court services across the State. While visiting all 58 county courts, then-Chief Justice Ronald George discovered that chronic under-funding of many courts in the county-based court system substantially impaired access to justice, including "woefully inadequate facilities, insufficient staff, unavailable interpreter services, and antiquated information processing systems." In his first year as chief justice, Chief Justice George twice had to seek emergency funding from the Legislature in order to prevent the shutdown of some county trial court operations. In 1997, after significant problems came to light with the county-based court funding model, the Legislature passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, AB 233 (Escutia), Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997, requiring the state to assume responsibility for funding the courts and helping to ensure equal access to a quality judicial system statewide.

After the state took over funding, the courts received significant funding increases and the historically underfunded counties began to see infusions of new funding from the state. However, most of the state funding continued to be distributed based on the courts' historical allocations, so courts that were better funded by their counties remained better funded by the state, and courts that were underfunded by their counties still struggled to generate enough revenue to maintain full access to legal services.

Beginning in 2005, the Judicial Council began seeking legislative authorization and funding for additional trial court judges to address judicial shortfalls resulting from population growth. At that time, the Judicial Council reported that the state faced a "judicial gap" that portended a number of troubling long term consequences: a significant decrease in Californians' access to the courts; compromised public safety; an unstable business environment; and, in some courts, enormous backlogs that inhibit fair, timely, and equitable justice. According to the Judicial Council, that judicial gap arose because the number of trial court judges had not kept pace with population growth, and the resulting increased demand on the courts. At the time the Judicial Council noted that, between 1990 and 2000, for example, California's population grew by over 16 percent; yet at the time the number of new judgeships created by the Legislature grew by less than three percent.

At that time, the Judicial Council pointed out that its uniform and objective assessment criteria contained in its 2001 and 2004 Judicial Needs Studies identified a statewide need for 355 new trial court judgeships. However, in consideration of the state's ongoing budget woes, the Council initially suggested a need for 150 new judgeships over that next three years. In response to the need, the Legislature passed SB 56 (Dunn), Chapter 390, Statutes of 2006, which authorized, upon appropriation, 50 new trial court judgeships. Funding for those positions was provided in the budget that year. The next 50 trial court judges were authorized in AB 159 (Jones), Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007. However, the requisite funding for those 50 positions, not part of AB 159, was not included in that fiscal year's budget. Shortly after the passage of AB 159, the financial markets crashed, the Great Recession took hold, and California's budget woes became a full-blown crisis. Faced with billions of dollars of budget cuts, the funding of the 50 judicial positions authorized by AB 159, and the authorization and funding of the next 50 positions, became luxuries the state could not afford.

As California's economy and budget improved new attempts to fund judicial positions began. Since 2011, several bills have attempted to fund or authorize additional judicial positions including, AB 1313 (Donnelly) of 2013), SB 1190 (Jackson) of 2014, SB 229 (Roth) of 2015), AB 2446 (Obernolte) of 2018, and AB 2108 (Obernolte) of 2020). All of those measures either failed in the Legislature or were vetoed by the Governor due to cost or failure to adhere to the Judicial Council's needs assessment process.

According to the 2020 Judicial Needs Survey, California courts need 139 new judgeships to meet the existing caseloads. While it appears that some courts may have surplus judges, some courts are critically deficient in the number of bench officers hearing cases. Accordingly, this bill would authorize 26 new judicial positions to be allocated across the state. If approved, and funded, these judges would cut the overall need to fewer than 100 judges needed statewide. However, reflecting the state's current budget conditions, this bill conditions the judicial positions on budgetary appropriations.

This measure proposes to allocate the 26 new judicial positions in accordance with Judicial Council's Judicial Needs Survey. The 2020 survey noted that San Bernardino County needs 43 new judges and Riverside County need 30. The county with the next highest needs is Sacramento County with a deficit of 13 judges. Accordingly, while the 26 positions authorized by this measure would be spread around the state, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of the new positions will be allocated to the Inland Empire counties with the greatest need.

According to the Author

Based on the Judicial Council's 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment, seventeen counties (17) require additional judgeships for a total requirement of ninety-eight (98) new judicial positions in the State. Of the ninety-eight (98) positions required in the State, Riverside and San Bernardino counties need a total of fifty-two (52) of those judicial positions in order to provide appropriate access to justice for Inland Southern California residents. The fifty-two (52) positions needed in these two counties represents 55 percent of the overall need in the State.

This disparity is expected to widen as Riverside and San Bernardino counties are projected to continue their rapid growth. Riverside County has experienced a 62 percent increase in population since 2000 and San Bernardino County experienced a 33 percent increase in population during the same period. Furthermore, according to the Judicial Council of California's 2022 Court Statistics Report, Riverside County Superior Court had 3,515 filings per judicial position, the 3rd highest number amongst the state's 58 counties. While San Bernardino and Riverside counties are the two counties with the most need, 15 other counties require additional resources as well. Without action, the exceptional inequity seen in this region and others will only grow.

Arguments in Support

This measure is supported by several county government organizations and the California District Attorneys Association. In support of the measure, the County of Riverside writes:

As you are aware, the Judicial Council of California assesses superior courts' workload and subsequently produces a biennial report regarding statewide judgeship needs. The Judicial Needs Assessment then prioritizes placement of additionally required judicial officers based on need. The latest assessment, published in fall 2022, identifies a need for 98 additional judicial officers to meet statewide workload and caseload demands. Riverside County has the second largest shortfall in assessed judicial need – the superior court's workload warrants an additional 23 judicial officers, which represents nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of the overall statewide need for 98 judicial officers. Even after funding 23 previously authorized judgeships in the 2022-23 budget, four of which were directed to the Riverside County Superior Court, the gap between local trial court workload and assessed judicial need remains vast. Steep population growth in Riverside County over the last several decades has greatly outpaced the trial court's ability to keep up with the attendant demand on judicial resources.

SB 75 would take another necessary and appropriate step in addressing the clearly demonstrated shortfall in judicial resources across the state.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs (General Fund) in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Judicial Council reports ongoing operational costs of approximately $44.2 million annually and one-time facility costs ranging from $91 million to $208 million to support 26 additional judgeships. The operational cost for one judgeship position is approximately $1.7 million per year and includes funding for approximately nine staff positions that support the work of each judge. Facilities costs will depend on where the judges are assigned; some courthouses may have vacant space or space that can be renovated to provide a new courtroom, but others may need new building space.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ASM JUDICIARY: 10-0-1

YES: Maienschein, Essayli, Connolly, Dixon, Haney, Kalra, Pacheco, Papan, Reyes, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 16-0-0

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Soria, Weber, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: March 20, 2023

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001470

Date of Hearing: June 28, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 75

Author:(Roth) – As Amended Ver:March 20, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill authorizes, upon appropriation, 26 additional superior court judgeships that must be allocated based on the Judicial Council’s Judicial Needs Study.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs (General Fund) in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Judicial Council reports ongoing operational costs of approximately $44.2 million annually and one-time facility costs ranging from $91 million to $208 million to support 26 additional judgeships. The operational cost for one judgeship position is approximately $1.7 million per year and includes funding for approximately nine staff positions that support the work of each judge. Facilities costs will depend on where the judges are assigned; some courthouses may have vacant space or space that can be renovated to provide a new courtroom, but others may need new building space.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Based on the Judicial Council’s 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment, seventeen counties (17) require additional judgeships for a total requirement of ninety-eight (98) new judicial positions in the State. Of the ninety-eight (98) positions required in the State, Riverside and San Bernardino counties need a total of fifty-two (52) of those judicial positions in order to provide appropriate access to justice for Inland Southern California residents. The fifty-two (52) positions needed in these two counties represents 55 percent of the overall need in the State.

This disparity is expected to widen as Riverside and San Bernardino counties are projected to continue their rapid growth. Riverside County has experienced a 62 percent increase in population since 2000 and San Bernardino County experienced a 33 percent increase in population during the same period. Furthermore, according to the Judicial Council of California’s 2022 Court Statistics Report, Riverside County Superior Court had 3,515 filings per judicial position, the 3rd highest number amongst the state’s 58 counties. While San Bernardino and Riverside counties are the two counties with the most need, 15 other counties require additional resources as well. Without action, the exceptional inequity seen in this region and others will only grow.

1. Background. Due to budget constraints, California does not have enough sitting judges to serve the needs of the state’s growing population. Although the California Budget Act of 2022 authorized and funded 23 new superior court judgeships, the Judicial Council reported in its November 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment that the state needs an additional 98 judge positions to meet current workload. Using a weighted methodology, the Judicial Council has determined which counties have the greatest need for new judicial officers based on workload, including San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Kern County. This bill, upon appropriation, authorizes an additional 26 superior court judge positions, which must be distributed as described in the Judicial Needs Assessment.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 20, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Brian Maienschein, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 75

Author:(Roth) – As Amended Ver:March 20, 2023

PROPOSED CONSENT

SENATE VOTE: 40-0

SUBJECT: Courts: judgeships

KEY ISSUE: should the legislature approve 26 new judgeships, contingent on funding, to be allocated in accordance with the judicial council’s most recent judicial needs study?

SYNOPSIS

This non-controversial measure would provide for 26 new judicial positions to be allocated, upon appropriation, across California’s superior courts in accordance with the Judicial Council’s Judicial Needs Study. This bill is yet another in a series of bills that this Committee has considered in recent years seeking to remedy the deficit of judges serving in courts located in California’s inland counties. As highlighted by the Judicial Council’s 2020 Judicial Needs Study the current statewide allocation of judicial officers is leaving many inland counties without adequate judicial staff. The bill seeks to address this imbalance by allocating new judges to those counties with the greatest need by directing the new judgeships to be allocated in accordance with the study’s recommendations. Reflecting the state’s current budgetary constraints, this measure would make the authorization of the judicial positions contingent on a budget appropriation by the Legislature.

This measure is supported by numerous local government agencies, law enforcement, and court users who bemoan the impact to everyday Californian’s access to justice as well as the impact on basic governmental functions that results from inadequately staffed courts. The bill has no known opposition and passed the Senate unanimously.

SUMMARY: Authorizes 26 new judicial positions for the superior courts. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes 26 additional superior court judgeships.
2. Specifies that the additional judgeships authorized by 1) are contingent on appropriation.
3. Provides that the judgeships authorized by 1) are to be allocated to the various county superior courts, in accordance with the uniform criteria set forth in the Judicial Council’s Judicial Needs Study.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that the Legislature is to prescribe the number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of each superior court. (California Constitution, Article VI, Section 4.)
2. Provides that the Legislature may provide for the trial courts to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties. (California Constitution, Article VI, Section 22.)
3. Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial officers, and sets forth their duties and titles. (Government Code Section 71622.)
4. Sets forth the specific number of trial court judges in each county. (Government Code Section 69580 et seq.)
5. Provides that new superior court judges are to be allocated, in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional judicial need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council, pursuant to the most recent update of the Judicial Council of California’s Judicial Needs Study, based on the following criteria:
   1. Court filings data averaged over a period of three years;
   2. Workload standards that represent the average amount of time of bench and nonbench 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. (Government Code Section 69614 (b).)
6. Provides that, upon appropriation, 100 judges are to be allocated to the various county superior courts in accordance with 5). (Government Code Section 69614.3 (a).)
7. Provides that 25 judges are allocated for appointment in the 2019-2020 fiscal year. (Government Code Section 69614.3 (e).)

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

COMMENTS: Due to the significant budget constraints that plagued California for much of the early-2010s, the appointment of new judges to California courts did not keep pace with the state’s growing population. This problem has been especially acute in the faster growing inland areas of California. To begin to address the issue, in 2019, the Legislature funded 25 new judgeships. Last year, the Legislature approved an additional 23 new positions in the budget. Although caseloads have decreased across many courts, the author believes additional judges are still needed, especially in the Inland Empire. In support of this bill, the author states:

Based on the Judicial Council’s 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment, seventeen counties (17) require additional judgeships for a total requirement of ninety-eight (98) new judicial positions in the State. Of the ninety-eight (98) positions required in the State, Riverside and San Bernardino counties need a total of fifty-two (52) of those judicial positions in order to provide appropriate access to justice for Inland Southern California residents. The fifty-two (52) positions needed in these two counties represents 55 percent of the overall need in the State.

This disparity is expected to widen as Riverside and San Bernardino counties are projected to continue their rapid growth. Riverside County has experienced a 62 percent increase in population since 2000 and San Bernardino County experienced a 33 percent increase in population during the same period. Furthermore, according to the Judicial Council of California’s 2022 Court Statistics Report, Riverside County Superior Court had 3,515 filings per judicial position, the 3rd highest number amongst the state’s 58 counties. While San Bernardino and Riverside counties are the two counties with the most need, 15 other counties require additional resources as well. Without action, the exceptional inequity seen in this region and others will only grow.

Historically, Courts Were County-Funded Entities and Funding Levels Varied Enormously Across the State. Until the late 1990s, trial courts in California were county entities, funded by the counties. Accordingly, funding levels varied dramatically between counties resulting in different levels of court services across the State. While visiting all 58 county courts, then-Chief Justice Ronald George discovered that chronic under-funding of many courts in the county-based court system substantially impaired access to justice, including “woefully inadequate facilities, insufficient staff, unavailable interpreter services, and antiquated information processing systems.” In his first year as chief justice, Chief Justice George twice had to seek emergency funding from the Legislature in order to prevent the shutdown of some county trial court operations. In 1997, after significant problems came to light with the county-based court funding model, the Legislature passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, AB 233 (Escutia & Pringle, Chap. 850, Stats. 1997), requiring the state to assume responsibility for funding the courts and helping to ensure equal access to a quality judicial system statewide.

After the state took over funding, the courts received significant funding increases and the historically underfunded counties began to see infusions of new funding from the state. However, most of the state funding continued to be distributed based on the courts' historical allocations, so courts that were better funded by their counties remained better funded by the state, and courts that were underfunded by their counties still struggled to generate enough revenue to maintain full access to legal services.

Early success in providing judges to courts to address California’s growing population. Beginning in 2005, the Judicial Council began seeking legislative authorization and funding for additional trial court judges to address judicial shortfalls resulting from population growth. At that time, the Judicial Council reported that the state faced a "judicial gap" that portended a number of troubling long term consequences: a significant decrease in Californians' access to the courts; compromised public safety; an unstable business environment; and, in some courts, enormous backlogs that inhibit fair, timely, and equitable justice. According to the Judicial Council, that judicial gap arose because the number of trial court judges had not kept pace with population growth, and the resulting increased demand on the courts. At the time the Judicial Council noted that, between 1990 and 2000, for example, California's population grew by over 16 percent; yet at the time the number of new judgeships created by the Legislature grew by less than three percent.

At that time, the Judicial Council pointed out that its uniform and objective assessment criteria contained in its 2001 and 2004 Judicial Needs Studies identified a statewide need for 355 new trial court judgeships. However, in consideration of the state's ongoing budget woes, the Council initially suggested a need for 150 new judgeships over that next three years. In response to the need, the Legislature passed SB 56 (Dunn, Chap. 390, Stats. 2006), which authorized, upon appropriation, 50 new trial court judgeships. Funding for those positions was provided in the budget that year. The next 50 trial court judges were authorized in AB 159 (Jones), Chap. 722, Stats. 2007. However, the requisite funding for those 50 positions, not part of AB 159, was not included in that fiscal year’s budget.

Budget woes undercut numerous attempts to address the Judicial Branch’s staffing shortfalls. Shortly after the passage of AB 159, the financial markets crashed, the Great Recession took hold, and California’s budget woes became a full-blown crisis. Faced with billions of dollars of budget cuts, the funding of the 50 judicial positions authorized by AB 159, and the authorization and funding of the next 50 positions, became luxuries the state could not afford.

As California’s economy and budget improved new attempts to fund judicial positions began. Since 2011, several bills have attempted to fund or authorize additional judicial positions including, AB 1313 (Donnelly, 2013), SB 1190 (Jackson, 2014), SB 229 (Roth, 2015), AB 2446 (Obernolte, 2018), and AB 2108 (Obernolte, 2020). All of those measures either failed in the Legislature or were vetoed by the Governor due to cost or failure to adhere to the Judicial Council’s needs assessment process.

This bill. According to the 2020 Judicial Needs Survey, California courts need 139 new judgeships to meet the existing caseloads. While it appears that some courts may have surplus judges, some courts are critically deficient in the number of bench officers hearing cases. Accordingly, this bill would authorize 26 new judicial positions to be allocated across the state. If approved, and funded, these judges would cut the overall need to fewer than 100 judges needed statewide. However, reflecting the state’s current budget conditions, this bill conditions the judicial positions on budgetary appropriations.

The Judicial Council’s Judicial Needs Study highlights the need for more judges in the Inland Empire. This measure proposes to allocate the 26 new judicial positions in accordance with Judicial Council’s Judicial Needs Survey. The 2020 survey noted that San Bernardino County needs 43 new judges and Riverside County need 30. The county with the next highest needs is Sacramento County with a deficit of 13 judges. Accordingly, while the 26 positions authorized by this measure would be spread around the state, it’s clear that the overwhelming majority of the new positions will be allocated to the Inland Empire counties with the greatest need.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This measure is supported by several county government organizations and the California District Attorneys Association. In support of the measure, the County of Riverside writes:

As you are aware, the Judicial Council of California assesses superior courts’ workload and subsequently produces a biennial report regarding statewide judgeship needs. The Judicial Needs Assessment then prioritizes placement of additionally required judicial officers based on need. The latest assessment, published in fall 2022, identifies a need for 98 additional judicial officers to meet statewide workload and caseload demands. Riverside County has the second largest shortfall in assessed judicial need – the superior court’s workload warrants an additional 23 judicial officers, which represents nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of the overall statewide need for 98 judicial officers. Even after funding 23 previously authorized judgeships in the 2022-23 budget, four of which were directed to the Riverside County Superior Court, the gap between local trial court workload and assessed judicial need remains vast. Steep population growth in Riverside County over the last several decades has greatly outpaced the trial court’s ability to keep up with the attendant demand on judicial resources.

SB 75 would take another necessary and appropriate step in addressing the clearly demonstrated shortfall in judicial resources across the state. For these reasons, the County of Riverside is pleased to support this important bill and encourages your most positive consideration when the measure comes before your committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association
Consumer Attorneys of California
Corona Police Officers Association
County of Riverside
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Inland Action
Riverside Community College District
Riverside County Sheriff's Office
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Rural County Representatives of California
San Bernardino County
Upland Police Officers Association
Urban Counties of California

Opposition

None on file

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

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 75

Author: Roth (D), et al.

Amended: 3/20/23

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-0, 3/28/23

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Niello, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Min, Stern

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

SUBJECT: Courts: judgeships

SOURCE: Judicial Council of California

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes, subject to appropriation, 26 additional superior court judgeships and requires the Judicial Council to allocate the judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to specified standards for factually determining judicial need in each county.

ANALYSIS:

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: (a) court filings data averaged over a three-year period; (b) workload standards that represent the average amount of time of bench and non-bench work required to resolve each case type; and (c) 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, Chapter 45, Statutes of 2018.)

This bill:

1. Authorizes 26 additional superior court judgeships, subject to appropriation.
2. Requires the Judicial Council to allocate those 26 judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to the standards currently used to allocate judgeships in the state.
3. Makes various findings and declarations of the Legislature including:
   1. The public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every county in the state.
   2. While additional judgeships have been funded between 2007 and 2022 and that funding has reduced the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial need, a critical need for additional judicial resources in some underserved areas of the state continues to exist.
   3. Based on the Judicial Council’s 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment, 17 counties require additional judgeships, for a total requirement of 98 new judicial positions in the state. In some counties, the existing disparity between authorized and funded positions and judicial need is expected to widen due to continued dramatic population growth in the future.
   4. In Inland Southern California, the County of Riverside has experienced a 62-percent increase in population since 2000 and the County of San Bernardino, with a 33-percent increase in population during the same period, has experienced similar explosive growth. As a result, the 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment determined that, of the 98 positions required in the state, the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino need a total of 52 of those judicial positions in order to provide appropriate access to justice for inland southern California residents, 55 percent of the overall requirement in the state. 15 other counties require additional resources as well.

Comments

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. However, the funding for the authorized 50 judgeships was deferred to June 1, 2009, and then delayed again to July 2009. 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, two of those approved judgeships were funded and allocated when the number of judges in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside was increased from 51 to 53. (SB 847, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 45, Statutes of 2018) The California Budget Act of 2019 included funding for 25 additional superior court judgeships,^[1] and the California Budget Act of 2022 authorized and provided funding for 23 new superior court judgeships, resulting in the 50 new judgeships originally authorized in 2008 being funded.^[2] The 23 judgeships funded in 2022 were allocated as follows:^[3]

According to the Judicial Council: “the determination of which courts are to receive judgeships is based on the Judicial Council’s prioritization and ranking methodology, which considers courts with the greatest need relative to the current complement of judicial officers and the goal to improve access to courts for the greatest number of users.[fn. omitted]”^[4]

Even with the 50 judgeships originally approved in 2008 being fully funded, the need for more judgeships persists. As the author and Judicial Council note, “the public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every county in the state.”^[5] The 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment concluded that 17 superior courts need new judgeships for a total of 98 new judges.^[6] The assessment determined that Riverside needs 22 full-time equivalent judicial positions (FTEs) and San Bernardino needs 30 FTEs, which accounts for 55 percent of the entire need statewide.^[7] In addition, the assessment concluded that Fresno needs 7 FTEs, San Joaquin needs 6 FTEs, Sacramento needs 4 FTEs, and Tulare needs 3 FTEs.^[8] Lastly, the assessment concluded that Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, and Stanislaus need 2 FTEs and that Humboldt, Lake, Orange, Shasta, and Tehama need 1 FTEs.^[9]

The Judicial Council writes in its 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment that:

The public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every jurisdiction. In recent years, the branch has received funding for the 50 judgeships authorized by AB 159 (Stats. 2007, Ch. 722): two judgeships were funded in 2018, 25 were funded in 2019, and, most recently, 23 were funded in 2022. This funding has greatly minimized the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial need. However, there continues to be workload-based judicial need in some superior courts.^[10]

This bill seeks to address the need for new judgeships by authorizing 26 additional superior court judgeships, upon appropriation, and requires the Judicial Council to allocate those judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to the standards currently used to allocate judgeships in the state. The author notes that the County of Riverside has experienced a 62-percent increase in population since 2000 and the County of San Bernardino has had 33-percent increase in population during the same period. The author points out that this growth in population is projected to continue for both counties.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, cost pressures in the hundreds of millions (General Fund). The Judicial Council of California (JCC) reports ongoing costs of approximately $44.2 million and one-time facility costs ranging from $91 million to $208 million.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)

Judicial Council of California (source)

California District Attorneys Association

California State Association of Counties

Consumer Attorneys of California

Corona Police Officers Association

County of Riverside

Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce

Inland Action

Riverside County Sheriff's Office

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

Rural County Representatives of California

San Bernardino County

Upland Police Officers Association

Urban Counties of California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/18/23)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:

Based on the Judicial Council’s 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment, seventeen counties (17) require additional judgeships for a total requirement of ninety-eight (98) new judicial positions in the State. Of the ninety-eight (98) positions required in the State, Riverside and San Bernardino counties need a total of fifty-two (52) of those judicial positions in order to provide appropriate access to justice for Inland Southern California residents. The fifty-two (52) positions needed in these two counties represents 55 percent of the overall need in the State.

This disparity is expected to widen as Riverside and San Bernardino counties are projected to continue their rapid growth. Riverside County has experienced a 62 percent increase in population since 2000 and San Bernardino County experienced a 33 percent increase in population during the same period. Furthermore, according to the Judicial Council of California’s 2022 Court Statistics Report, Riverside County Superior Court had 3,515 filings per judicial position, the 3rd highest number amongst the state’s 58 counties. While San Bernardino and Riverside counties are the two counties with the most need, 15 other counties require additional resources as well. Without action, the exceptional inequity seen in this region and others will only grow.

The Judicial Council of California, sponsor of this bill, writes in support stating:

California is a pioneer in the measurement of judicial workload-based need, having been the first state to use a weighted caseload methodology to assess the need for judicial officers, beginning in 1963. In 2001, in consultation with the National Center for State Courts, the Judicial Council completed the California Judicial Needs Assessment Project and developed uniform criteria for determining judicial needs in California and how judgeships are allocated to the courts. […]

As a result of this work, the council has sponsored more than a dozen pieces of legislation over the last several years seeking authorization and funding for much needed new judgeships throughout the state, to be allocated according to the factually determined need set forth in the biannual Judicial Needs Study. Seeking an adequate number of judgeships and judicial officers in counties with the greatest need remains a legislative priority in 2023 and the Judicial Council is pleased to support and sponsor SB 75.

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

5/20/23 12:37:50

**** END ****

1. Dept. of Finance, California Budget 2019–20, “Judicial Branch,” https://ebudget.ca.gov/2019-20/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf (June 27, 2019). ↑

2. Id. ↑

3. Judicial Council of Cal., Rep. on the Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2022 Update of the Judicial Needs Assessment (Oct. 2022), p. 7. ↑

4. Id. at 6. ↑

5. Id. at 3. ↑

6. Id. at 5-6. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

9. Ibid. ↑

10. Id. at 3. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 75 (Roth) - Courts: judgeships

Bill Summary:

SB 75 would, subject to an appropriation, authorize an additional 26 superior court judgeships and require the Judicial Council (JCC) to allocate the judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to specified standards for factually determining judicial need in each county.

Fiscal Impact:

Cost pressures in the hundreds of millions (General Fund). The Judicial Council of California (JCC) reports ongoing costs of approximately $44.2 million and one-time facility costs ranging from $91 million to $208 million. See Staff Comments for additional detail.

Background:

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. However, the funding for the authorized 50 judgeships was deferred to June 1, 2009, and then delayed again to July 2009. 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, two of those approved judgeships were funded and allocated when the number of judges in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside was increased from 51 to 53. (SB 847 (Ch. 45, Stats. 2018)) The California Budget Act of 2019 included funding for 25 additional superior court judgeships, and the The 2022 Budget Act included $42.6 million General Fund in 2022-23 and $42.3 million ongoing for 23 additional superior court judgeships. The 23 judgeships funded in 2022 were allocated as follows:

As a result, all of the judgeships authorized in statute are currently fully funded. Even with the 50 judgeships originally approved in 2008 being fully funded, however, the need for more judgeships persists. According to the author, “the public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every county in the state.” The 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment concluded that 17 superior courts need new judgeships for a total of 98 new judges. The assessment determined that Riverside needs 22 full-time equivalent judicial positions (FTEs) and San Bernardino needs 30 FTEs, which accounts for 55 percent of the entire need statewide. In addition, the assessment concluded that Fresno needs 7 FTEs, San Joaquin needs 6 FTEs, Sacramento needs 4 FTEs, and Tulare needs 3 FTEs. Lastly, the assessment concluded that Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, and Stanislaus need 2 FTEs and that Humboldt, Lake, Orange, Shasta, and Tehama need 1 FTEs.

The Judicial Council writes in its 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment that “The public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every jurisdiction. In recent years, the branch has received funding for the 50 judgeships authorized by AB 159 (Stats. 2007, Ch. 722): two judgeships were funded in 2018, 25 were funded in 2019, and, most recently, 23 were funded in 2022. This funding has greatly minimized the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial need. However, there continues to be workload-based judicial need in some superior courts.”

This bill seeks to address the need for new judgeships by authorizing 26 additional superior court judgeships, upon appropriation, and requires the Judicial Council to allocate those judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to the standards currently used to allocate judgeships in the state.

Proposed Law:

• Authorizes 26 additional superior court judgeships, subject to appropriation.
  
• Requires the Judicial Council to allocate those 26 judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to the standards currently used to allocate judgeships in the state.

Related Legislation:

• SB 95 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, 2019, Ch. 36, Stats. 2019) specified that a certain item in the Budget Act of 2019 allocated 25 of the 48 judgeships effective in the 2019–20 fiscal year.
• 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.

Staff Comments:

This bill would authorize an additional 26 judgeships in statute, subject to an appropriation. According to information provided by the JCC, the operational cost for one judgeship is $1.7 million annually. This includes a compliment of 9.0 staff positions that support the work of the judge. Additionally, the facilities cost to provide courtroom space for 26 new judges will depend on where they are assigned. Some courthouses may have vacant space or space that is able to be retrofitted for a new courtroom, while others will need new building space created. The estimated range to build out planned courtroom space is approximately $6 million per courthouse. Renovating existing non-courtroom space varies greatly and will cost between $3.5 million to $8 million depending on the existing conditions at the courthouse.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 75 (Author:Roth)

Version: March 20, 2023

Hearing Date: March 28, 2023

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

AMConsultant:

SUBJECT

Courts: Judgeships

DIGEST

This bill, subject to appropriation, authorizes 26 additional superior court judgeships and requires the Judicial Council to allocate the judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to specified standards for factually determining judicial need in each county.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This bill seeks to authorize 26 additional superior court judgeships, upon appropriation, and requires the Judicial Council to allocate the funded judgeships based on its determination of judicial needs. The 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment concluded that 17 superior courts need new judgeships for a total of 98 new judges, with 53 percent of the need being located in San Bernardino and Riverside counties alone.^[1] The bill is sponsored by the Judicial Council of California and supported by several counties and associations representing counties, the California District Attorneys Association, the Consumer Attorneys of California, organizations representing businesses, and various associations representing law enforcement. 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. Authorizes 26 additional superior court judgeships, subject to appropriation.
2. Requires the Judicial Council to allocate those 26 judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to the standards currently used to allocate judgeships in the state.
3. Makes various findings and declarations of the Legislature including:
   1. The public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every county in the state.
   2. While additional judgeships have been funded between 2007 and 2022 and that funding has reduced the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial need, a critical need for additional judicial resources in some underserved areas of the state continues to exist.
   3. Based on the Judicial Council’s 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment, 17 counties require additional judgeships, for a total requirement of 98 new judicial positions in the state. In some counties, the existing disparity between authorized and funded positions and judicial need is expected to widen due to continued dramatic population growth in the future.
   4. In Inland Southern California, the County of Riverside has experienced a 62-percent increase in population since 2000 and the County of San Bernardino, with a 33-percent increase in population during the same period, has experienced similar explosive growth. As a result, the 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment determined that, of the 98 positions required in the state, the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino need a total of 52 of those judicial positions in order to provide appropriate access to justice for inland southern California residents, 55 percent of the overall requirement in the state. 15 other counties require additional resources as well.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Based on the Judicial Council’s 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment, seventeen counties (17) require additional judgeships for a total requirement of ninety-eight (98) new judicial positions in the State. Of the ninety-eight (98) positions required in the State, Riverside and San Bernardino counties need a total of fifty-two (52) of those judicial positions in order to provide appropriate access to justice for Inland Southern California residents. The fifty-two (52) positions needed in these two counties represents 55 percent of the overall need in the State.

This disparity is expected to widen as Riverside and San Bernardino counties are projected to continue their rapid growth. Riverside County has experienced a 62 percent increase in population since 2000 and San Bernardino County experienced a 33 percent increase in population during the same period. Furthermore, according to the Judicial Council of California’s 2022 Court Statistics Report, Riverside County Superior Court had 3,515 filings per judicial position, the 3rd highest number amongst the state’s 58 counties. While San Bernardino and Riverside counties are the two counties with the most need, 15 other counties require additional resources as well. Without action, the exceptional inequity seen in this region and others will only grow.

2. The need for additional judgeships persists even though 50 additional judgeships have been allocated and funded since 2008

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. However, the funding for the authorized 50 judgeships was deferred to June 1, 2009, and then delayed again to July 2009. 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, two of those approved judgeships were funded and allocated when the number of judges in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside was increased from 51 to 53. (SB 847 (Ch. 45, Stats. 2018)) The California Budget Act of 2019 included funding for 25 additional superior court judgeships,^[2] and the California Budget Act of 2022 authorized and provided funding for 23 new superior court judgeships, resulting in the 50 new judgeships originally authorized in 2008 being funded.^[3] The 23 judgeships funded in 2022 were allocated as follows:^[4]

According to the Judicial Council: “the determination of which courts are to receive judgeships is based on the Judicial Council’s prioritization and ranking methodology, which considers courts with the greatest need relative to the current complement of judicial officers and the goal to improve access to courts for the greatest number of users.[fn. omitted]”^[5]

Even with the 50 judgeships originally approved in 2008 being fully funded, the need for more judgeships persists. As the author and Judicial Council note, “the public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every county in the state.”^[6] The 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment concluded that 17 superior courts need new judgeships for a total of 98 new judges.^[7] The assessment determined that Riverside needs 22 full-time equivalent judicial positions (FTEs) and San Bernardino needs 30 FTEs, which accounts for 55 percent of the entire need statewide.^[8] In addition, the assessment concluded that Fresno needs 7 FTEs, San Joaquin needs 6 FTEs, Sacramento needs 4 FTEs, and Tulare needs 3 FTEs.^[9] Lastly, the assessment concluded that Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, and Stanislaus need 2 FTEs and that Humboldt, Lake, Orange, Shasta, and Tehama need 1 FTEs.^[10]

The Judicial Council writes in its 2022 Judicial Needs Assessment that:

The public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources in every jurisdiction. In recent years, the branch has received funding for the 50 judgeships authorized by AB 159 (Stats. 2007, Ch. 722): two judgeships were funded in 2018, 25 were funded in 2019, and, most recently, 23 were funded in 2022. This funding has greatly minimized the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial need. However, there continues to be workload-based judicial need in some superior courts.^[11]

This bill seeks to address the need for new judgeships by authorizing 26 additional superior court judgeships, upon appropriation, and requires the Judicial Council to allocate those judgeships to the various county superior courts pursuant to the standards currently used to allocate judgeships in the state. The author notes that the County of Riverside has experienced a 62-percent increase in population since 2000 and the County of San Bernardino has had 33-percent increase in population during the same period. The author points out that this growth in population is projected to continue for both counties.

3. Statements in support

The Judicial Council of California, sponsor of the bill, writes in support stating:

California is a pioneer in the measurement of judicial workload-based need, having been the first state to use a weighted caseload methodology to assess the need for judicial officers, beginning in 1963. In 2001, in consultation with the National Center for State Courts, the Judicial Council completed the California Judicial Needs Assessment Project and developed uniform criteria for determining judicial needs in California and how judgeships are allocated to the courts. […]

As a result of this work, the council has sponsored more than a dozen pieces of legislation over the last several years seeking authorization and funding for much needed new judgeships throughout the state, to be allocated according to the factually determined need set forth in the biannual Judicial Needs Study. Seeking an adequate number of judgeships and judicial officers in counties with the greatest need remains a legislative priority in 2023 and the Judicial Council is pleased to support and sponsor SB 75.

In support of the bill the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors writes:

California’s fastest growing counties, including San Bernardino County, face a critical shortage of judges. The 2022 Update of the Judicial Needs Assessment shows that 17 courts across the state are short a total of 98 judges. Of those 98 judges, 22 are needed in Riverside County while 30 are needed in San Bernardino County. This extreme shortage of judges creates extraordinary hardships for the residents of our County, who must wait years to have their legal cases even be heard, let alone resolved. San Bernardino County’s extreme shortage of judges places a crushing administrative burden on the entire apparatus of our Superior Court, where our judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and administrative support staff struggle to ensure that legal proceedings are held in a timely, effective manner. While we are aware that the state budget is projected to have a deficit this year, the lack of judges in the Inland Empire is an extreme inequity in the state. We strongly urged [sic] you and your colleagues to support SB 75 (Roth) and to support state funding to create these 26 new judge positions.

SUPPORT

Judicial Council of California (sponsor)

California District Attorneys Association

Consumer Attorneys of California

Corona Police Officers Association

County of Riverside

Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce

Inland Action

Riverside County Sheriff's Office

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

Rural County Representatives of California

San Bernardino County

Upland Police Officers Association
Urban Counties of California

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

SB 95 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, 2019, Ch. 36, Stats. 2019) specified that a certain item in the Budget Act of 2019 allocated 25 of the 48 judgeships effective in the 2019–20 fiscal year.

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 system wide 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: 2022 Update of the Judicial Needs Assessment (Nov. 2022), pp. 3 (hereafter Report). ↑

2. Dept. of Finance, California Budget 2019–20, “Judicial Branch,” https://ebudget.ca.gov/2019-20/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf (June 27, 2019). ↑

3. Id. ↑

4. Judicial Council of Cal., Rep. on the Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts: 2022 Update of the Judicial Needs Assessment (Oct. 2022), p. 7. ↑

5. Id. at 6. ↑

6. Id. at 3. ↑

7. Id. at 5-6. ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

9. Ibid. ↑

10. Ibid. ↑

11. Id. at 3. ↑