We recently reported on the ongoing campaign—opposed by much of the judiciary—to pass a bill granting the Judicial Council the power to reallocate vacant judgeships from one county to another.
Until last month, we thought that the idea was just a “concept” under discussion by the members of the Futures Commission. But it emerged in late April as a proposal before the Council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC), and was on the verge of approval before the first rumblings of dissent caused the PCLC to hit the pause button for a few days. The Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee (TCPJAC) did some hasty polling. Only 35 of 58 presiding judges responded. Forty-three percent of those polled—15 presiding judges—supported the idea, while nine “vehemently opposed” it and 11 stayed on the sidelines. The PCLC wound up voting in favor of a version allowing up to five positions to be shifted. You can read the Courthouse News story about the meeting here.
Even as the reallocation proposal was being bandied about in the PCLC—and even after the chair of the TCPJAC reported that “the presiding judges statewide are divided on this issue” and that the idea “has people nervous”—the five-judgeship version was already working its way before the Senate as a proposed amendment to AB 938, a bill on groundwater. You can find the proposed language in the attached file. The legislator who proposed the amendment promptly withdrew it, apparently as soon as he got wind of the fact that the judiciary was not all in favor of the idea.
We thought the whole thing was being shelved for now, or at least subject to further discussion in the Judicial Council itself. After all, according to its website, the PCLC’s charge is to “make[] recommendations on proposals for Judicial Council-sponsored legislation.” We figured that any proposed legislation that could so profoundly alter the makeup of each county’s bench would have to come up for public debate and an open vote by the Council.
We figured wrong. It’s back. AB 2341, a bill regarding health facilities, got completely gutted and transmogrified into a bill allowing the reallocation of up to five vacant judgeships. You can read the all-new bill here.
We oppose this bill. We think that the language is muddy; it could be interpreted as allowing up to five transfers from each court deemed overstaffed. We think the methodology to be used in assessing judicial needs is subject to change. The bill sets a bad precedent—once the Council gets the authority to move around a handful of judges, it will be far easier to sell the Legislature on giving it the authority to make wholesale transfers. Moreover, regardless of whether the number of judgeships in play is five or five hundred, and irrespective of the wisdom of taking judgeships from one county and moving them to another, the whole idea of delegating the power to allocate judgeships to the Council runs afoul of the California Constitution. Article 6, section 4 reads in part: “The Legislature shall prescribe the number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of each superior court.” The Legislature, not the Judicial Council, makes the call on the number of judgeships in each county.
When can we stop playing Whac-a-Mole with this seriously flawed idea? When will the Council’s lobbyists give it a rest and quit operating in stealth mode? When will our branch decision-makers allow for a meaningful discussion, one which includes dissenting voices, on a matter of vital importance to the trial courts?
We’ll do our best to monitor developments in the Legislature, even amendments to groundwater and health facility bills, but there has to be a more open and transparent way to make important policy decisions than the one the Judicial Council has chosen here.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Click here for a link to the proposed legislation
Note from JCW: This post experienced a delay in processing. This news release was made four days ago on May 20th.
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
May 24, 2016
More nice work ACJ & JCW.
😉
anonymous
May 25, 2016
25.8% of presiding judges agree with an unconstitutional proposal. The lobbying arm of the judiciary, ostensibly headed by the chief justice, the head adjudicator of constitutional issues pushes forth an unconstitutional proposal in the legislature instead of asking legislators to perform their constitutional duty in re-allocating judicial slots.
It’s difficult to respect and have any confidence in the rule of law when the cops are caught on camera statewide beating and shooting unarmed suspects and are non-judicially stealing cash and personal property and 25.8% of presiding judges and the chief justice support undermining the constitution. One of those bunkers in an undisclosed location is starting to look pretty good right now.
sharonkramer
May 27, 2016
These two statements in the same bill contradict each other:
“SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act shall not be construed to limit any of the following: (a) The authority of the Legislature to create and fund new judgeships pursuant to Section 4 of Article VI of the California Constitution.” [which states, “The Legislature shall prescribe the number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of each superior court.”]
and
“If the judgeship is eligible for allocation to another superior court, the Judicial Council shall promptly notify the applicable courts, the Legislature, and the Governor that the judgeship vacated in one court shall be allocated to another court.”
The JC doesn’t have the constitutional authority to “notify” anyone that vacated judgeships “SHALL be allocated to another court”. They only have the authority to notify of the need for the Legislature to cause reallocations.
With that said, to better serve California’s citizens there are judgeships in need of reassignment. Some counties currently have too many and other counties currently have too few. County Superior Courts are not able to reassign judgeships among each others’ counties. (Thank God!)
What is ACJ’s proposal of how these needed reassignments can be made now and in the future when the need arises again? And why should anyone take you seriously?
I don’t think it matters what your plan is. Because no one is going to listen to your indignant cries of foul until the trial courts start cleaning their own house.
One of MANY examples of why this is a Power-Give-Away, not a Power-Grab.
Multiple San Diego Superior Court judges are working with multiple practicing criminal defense attorneys to solicit money purposed to keep two appointed judges in their assigned judgeships. As such, the trial court judges cannot believably promote that this reallocation matter is about their concerns for protection of Constitutional rights and proper assignments of judgeships – and simultaneously have a bunch of criminals’ lawyers out soliciting money to sway the make-up of current judgeships. (Doh!)
Click to access scan0055.pdf
So if you want to know WHY the Judicial Council is able to get away with so much wrongful control over the trial court judges — look among your peers to find the answer.
Michael Paul
May 28, 2016
Hi Sharon,
You must really have an axe to grind. I say that because in your anger it appears you’ve again missed the answer to your question in the original post.
Here is your axe grinding questions. The second question is particularly offensive because they’re advocating following the constitution and you appear to be suggesting that no one should seriously believe that.
What is ACJ’s proposal of how these needed reassignments can be made now and in the future when the need arises again? And why should anyone take you seriously?
…and their answer:
Moreover, regardless of whether the number of judgeships in play is five or five hundred, and irrespective of the wisdom of taking judgeships from one county and moving them to another, the whole idea of delegating the power to allocate judgeships to the Council runs afoul of the California Constitution. Article 6, section 4 reads in part: “The Legislature shall prescribe the number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of each superior court.” The Legislature, not the Judicial Council, makes the call on the number of judgeships in each county.”
sharonkramer
May 29, 2016
Hi Michael,
Yes. I really do have an axe to grind — as I’m trying to save lives. Why else would I bother following JCW to learn how the courts really work?
Yes, it kind of bugs me when I see thousands of people’s lives being destroyed by multiple jurists in the San Diego Superior and Appellate Courts case fixing eleven years worth of SLAPP (including unrepentant falsification and continued usage of falsified court documents) NO ONE is doing anything to force the rescinding and vacating of void-on-their-face judgments to stop the court fraud covering up for the underlying fraud that is destroying lives. https://katysexposure.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/usdoj-letter-with-exhibits.pdf
So along those lines, Yes, it also bugs the Hell out of me when the judges whine about THEIR Constitutional rights being violated by the JC, and then turning around and violate people’s rights in their courtrooms AND in judicial elections (filling of judgeships.)
I don’t disagree that the JC is unconstitutionally trying to gain control of where judgeships are throughout the state — and that’s wrong. But whose going to listen to a bunch of finger-pointing judges who know their own house is in disorder? Whose going to want to give THEM any say in how judgeships are assigned?
Thus my questions of “What is ACJ’s proposal of how these needed reassignments can be made now and in the future when the need arises again? And why should anyone take you seriously?”
My point is: if the judges are going to scream about the helm of the CA courts being so corrupt, they might be taken more seriously by the Legislature and the public if they concentrated some efforts to clean up the ethics problems in the trial courts.
Then us — ya know “We the People” — would have our Constitutional rights protected from top to bottom in the courts.
This is where you and I have always had a philosophical difference. You think solving the problem is done by cutting off the head of the snake. I think you can’t cut off the head of the snake by using a dull blade. Sharpen the blade to be taken seriously and get the job done.
(and another thing that really bugs me about this is all the honest court employees, including JCW, who have worked their asses off over the years to try to stop corruption in the courts. THEY depend on the judges to be their influential voice. But sometimes it feels like the judges just use these people to get the judges’ rights’ protected)
unionman575
May 30, 2016
Peace…
Maxrebo5
May 31, 2016
Congrats to Courthouse News!
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/27/federal-judge-rules-for-courthouse-news-in-long-running-battle-over-access-in-ventura.htm
I swear it is a long fight for every little positive thing in CA Courts. The culture of the AOC remains exactly the same despite their recent name change. Nice to see the press won in Federal Court and has preserved their right to timely access to public records. Fight on!
Michael Paul
June 1, 2016
It’s a pyrrhic victory unless and until the ventura court and judicial council are held responsible for every penny of legal costs – and it comes out of their budget.
Wendy Darling
May 31, 2016
Today’s episode of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Tuesday, May 31, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
CA Judges Oppose Bill to Transfer Judgeships
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – California trial judges are opposing the Judicial Council’s latest political move, the introduction of a last-minute “gut and amend” bill that would allow the council to move five vacant judgeships among county courts.
The effort has found an ally in the California Legislature with Assembly Member Jay Obernolte, a Republican from San Bernardino, recently signing on as a sponsor for the bill.
In an interview, Obernolte said the judge shortage issue is personal. Coming from San Bernardino County, Obernolte said he had a front-line view of courthouse closures in Needles, Barstow, and Big Bear Lake, where Obernolte was mayor from 2010-2014.
“I realized that we in Big Bear had it pretty good because my constituents in Needles had it much worse. Those poor people have to drive 3.5 hours to Victorville to attend court,” he said.
“There’s no public transit on that route,”Obernolte added. “We’re not talking about big criminal matters, but simple things like child custody hearings. That’s why I’m so passionate about these issues.”
Obernolte’s bill, AB 2431, will require up to five vacant judgeships to be moved from county courts deemed to have an excess of judgeships to those with too few.
The bill would authorize the Judicial Council to reallocate judgeships based on a “Judicial Needs Study,” prepared by the Judicial Council “staff,” formerly called the Administrative Office of the Courts, in conjunction with the Workload Assessment Advisory Committee.
The committee held five teleconference meetings last year, which were open to press and public.
The study examined workloads in the county courts, and how much time is required to resolve each type of case in each county. Based on the results, it appears that the courts in Alameda and Santa Clara County are expected to cede positions to San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
Referring to the older standard for allocating judgeships, Obernolte said, “The formulas that were used to set the judgeship allocations have not kept with the population changes.”
The problem, however, is that every county is arguably underfunded and under-judged. A Judicial Council lobbyist said recently that California is short about 270 judges. And no county wants to be told it has too many judicial positions when courts are still struggling with voluminous caseloads.
There is also the constitutional issue. Article 6, Section 4 of the California Constitution clearly says that authority to set the number of judges for each county rests with the Legislature, and some judges have argued that the Legislature should not be giving up that authority to a body that has a history of making dubious financial and policy decisions.
One group of reform-minded judges, the Alliance of California Judges, voiced its vehement opposition in a recent statement. “The bill sets a bad precedent — once the Council gets the authority to move around a handful of judges, it will be far easier to sell the Legislature on giving it the authority to make wholesale transfers.”
The controversy originated in Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2016-17 budget package, where he outlined a plan to move five vacant judicial positions. “This will shift judgeships where the workload is highest without needing to increase the overall number of judges,” said the governor.
Brown has been emphatic that these vacant judgeships need to be moved before he will agree to fund any new positions.
“The reason its crafted that way is that the governor said this is the way he prefers we do it,” Obernolte reasoned, pointing to a veto message from a bill Brown rejected last year that would have funded 12 new judgeships already authorized by the Legislature.
“I am aware that the need for judges in many counties is acute — Riverside and San Bernardino are two clear examples,” Brown wrote. “However, before funding any positions, I intend to work with the Judicial Council to develop a more systemwide approach to balance the workload and the distribution of judgeships around the state.”
Brown reiterated that position in his budget package this year.
“The veto language made it clear he would prefer to see us reallocate existing resources than do an allocation for more resources in the court system,” Obernolte said. “That’s why we’re having to do this.”
The Judicial Council’s committee on legislation voted in early May to support Brown’s budget proposal, while pursuing emergency legislation.
The vote had been delayed over objections from the longstanding California Judges Association. In a letter, the group had said it would support legislation authorizing a one-time transfer of up to five judicial positions, but only if Brown committed to more funding.
“Of critical importance, any legislation should require the Legislature to provide additional funding for the recipient courts for personnel, administration and security costs related to these additional judgeships. Likewise, any reallocation methodology should mandate that a ‘donor’ court not lose funding due to losing one or more judicial vacancies. If additional funding is not provided, it is not possible to reallocate judicial positions in a fair and equitable manner,” said the CJA letter.
“CJA is also concerned with the multiple unintended consequences that may be realized with the transfer of judicial positions from one county to another. For example, the loss of judicial positions may lead to more sitting judges being challenged by those that would have otherwise run for election for one of the eliminated vacant seats, further politicizing and destabilizing the judiciary,” said the letter.
In a statement this month, the Alliance of California Judges said its members had understood that the committee would wait for the entire Judicial Council to weigh in, and allow for a public comment session. The Alliance letter argued that the committee’s official charge is only to make recommendations to the council.
The Alliance judges took particular exception to the bill’s history. AB 2341 started out as a bill related to health facilities, a point conceded by legislator Obernolte.
“We call that a gut and amend,” Obernolte said. “I’m not a huge fan of that process but that was the only way to get this done this year.”
Obernolte said he has full trust and confidence in the council’s ability to fairly reallocate the positions without overstepping the bounds of its power. “It’s the Judicial Council that has the expertise to decide which courthouses are understaffed and which are overstaffed,” he said. “I think it’s very appropriate that the Judicial Council should make this decision with legislative oversight.”
Even so, he noted that the bill caps the reallocation level at five.
“We’re not giving them unlimited authority to make these reassignments. We’re just admitting that misallocations exist,” he said.
The bill now sits with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/31/ca-judges-oppose-bill-to-transfer-judgeships.htm
Note to Assembly Member Jay Obernolte: As observed by the late P.T. Barnum: There’s a sucker born every minute.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 31, 2016
There is also the constitutional issue. Article 6, Section 4 of the California Constitution clearly says that authority to set the number of judges for each county rests with the Legislature, and some judges have argued that the Legislature should not be giving up that authority to a body that has a history of making dubious financial and policy decisions.
Yes indeed!
😉
wearyant
June 1, 2016
Will the AOC treat us to a new and improved definition of “timely” soon? Wait for it …
Maxrebo5
June 1, 2016
This line stuns me, “A Judicial Council lobbyist said recently that California is short about 270 judges.” That is a crazy figure! The CA Superior Courts do indeed have 7.5 million “cases” but over 5 million of those cases are very simple traffic misdemeanor and infraction tickets. Don’t take my word for it, go to the JC’s own annual statistics report:
Click to access 2015-Court-Statistics-Report.pdf
See on page 73 they talk about their “criminal” caseload and you can see there were 515,245 traffic misdemeanor caes and then 4,622,803 traffic infraction cases (over 5.1 million traffic cases). Those traffic “cases” are just tickets that are mostly paid by the driving public online, in person, or in the mail. They are easy money cases for the state and require almost no judge time to process.
There is no way CA needs 270 more judges when self driving cars are coming to market fast and they will possibly wipe out two thirds of the CA courts caseload (all those traffic tickets will go) in the next two decades. The Chief’s Furtures Committee has to see this very real change in car technology coming. It has the potential to destroy the entire business model for court funding. Some civil personal injury cases will go away too too due to far fewer car accidents. So how can the Judicial Council and CJA justify having over 2,000+ judges if the caseload could fall to less than 2 million cases? They can’t.
Assume I am wrong and traffic cases don’t go away. Just look at the current caseload trends which already show workloads have been down in CA Courts since 2009 by the Judicial Council’s own numbers (see the trend lines in the report I linked to this post). More judges is nuts! The state needs fewer judges and simply has to shift from counties that are already overstaffed with judges to those who still have some cases left to process. No new laws need to be passed.
Once pot is legal this year even fewer criminal cases will be filed and there will be even less need for new judgeships. This is why the JC needs other voices on it or it just becomes a political machine of hand picked cheerleaders instead of a diverse body of bright minds debating public policy for the judicial branch (as it should be).
I’m all for the 5 judges moving from Santa Clara and Alameda to inland counties right now to handle workload disparities between counties but I am opposed to the CJA position of wanting more judges in order to support it. The legislature should simply move those 5 judges now on their existing authority under the CA Constitutuon and not give any more power the undemocratic Judicial Council. The JC and CJA is only doing this to appease the Governor so they can then return to lobbying for ever more judges and ever more money for themselves. If it is only yes men on the JC it results in a lobbying nightmare that serves itself and not the interests of the public.
sharonkramer
June 1, 2016
“Of critical importance, any legislation should require the Legislature to provide additional funding for the recipient courts for personnel, administration and security costs related to these additional judgeships…any reallocation methodology should mandate that a ‘donor’ court not lose funding due to losing one or more judicial vacancies….” said the CJA letter.
Wouldn’t that be increasing the overall costs?
“CJA is also concerned with the multiple unintended consequences that may be realized with the transfer of judicial positions from one county to another. For example, the loss of judicial positions may lead to more sitting judges being challenged by those that would have otherwise run for election for one of the eliminated vacant seats, further politicizing and destabilizing the judiciary,’ said the letter.”
“Politicizing the judiciary”? By the act of sitting judges being Constitutionally subjected to challengers & voter retention/ousting?
Is that suppose to be a joke when the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) is on the hot seat for not removing bad judges from office and the only way to get them out is to vote them out?
Why is CJA using a 527 Political Action Committee called “Judicial Excellence Together”? They have contributed thousands of dollars to judicial campaigns to influence the make-up of judgeships where there are challengers.
To quote from a judicial campaign contribution disclosure “JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE TOGETHER, SPONSORED BY THE CA JUDGES ASSN..$8,000.00” and who they are:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/judicial-excellence-together.asp
From what I can tell CJA’s 527 is one of the biggest financers of “politicizing” the judiciary. And I whole-heartedly believe their politicizing needs to be “destabilized” for the good of California citizens.
With the above quoted CJA self-serving statements coupled with the reality of what they actually do to turn their short-term judicial appointments into guaranteed life-time jobs (no matter how bad they are), CJA has back-handedly proven by self-example:
It would not benefit California citizens if the Legislature gave branch leaders greater power to rearrange the judgeship-deck-chairs. They can’t even play fair with the ones already in position. The favored suck-ups to the dysfunctional JC/AOC would game the system to gain more life-time appointed judgeships for their counties — whether needed or not.
I agree with Max ” No new laws need to be passed…The legislature should simply move those 5 judges now on their existing authority under the CA Constitution and not give any more power the undemocratic Judicial Council….If it is only [life-time appointed] yes men [who the CJP refuses to police for unethical conduct] on the JC, it results in a lobbying nightmare that serves itself and not the interests of the public.”
sharonkramer
June 3, 2016
American Media Institute: Judges say high cost of Long Beach courthouse is depriving other areas of courtrooms
“a public-private development deal with high-profile contractors that includes a service contract leaving Golden State residents on the hook for $53 million in annual costs for 35 years. The George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach, which opened in 2013, has been newly criticized by California judges who have formed what has been dubbed a ‘Rebel Alliance.”
https://americanmediainstitute.com/investigations/judges-say-high-cost-long-beach-courthouse-depriving-areas-courtrooms/
Michael Paul
June 3, 2016
Long Beach only costs 110,000 traffic convictions per month, What’s the problem?
sharonkramer
June 3, 2016
In case people don’t bother reading the link about the LB courthouse, below is the reason I posted it here. The article provides yet another example of why it is not a good idea for the Legislature to deed the Judicial Council any more authority than they already have.
“The Judicial Council and its administrative office have come under heavy fire from the California state auditor for problems seen frequently in the state’s government: staff salaries higher than that of the governor; fleets of unnecessary state cars; expensive payments to consultants; over-payments to contractors; and pricey headquarters in tony locations such as San Francisco rather than the less costly state capital, Sacramento. Using faulty assumptions about costs, the Judicial Council may have spent as much as $160 million more than necessary, according to a California State Legislative Analyst report released in 2012.”
Michael Paul
June 3, 2016
I stand corrected. Based on older math supplied by the AOC, the actual number of required traffic convictions to keep Long Beach’s lights on is actually 127,292 per month.
The sad part about this is these convictions must happen to keep the lights on with ominous side effects that drive up the cost of everyone’s car insurance. Those who get the citations will pay about a grand more each and every year for auto insurance (per conviction) and those who can’t afford it will cause everyone else’s uninsured motorist premiums to rise with the increased rate of suspensions.