California Proposition 220 (1998)
From Ballotpedia
| California Constitution |
|---|
|
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI VII • VIII • IX • X XA • XB • XI • XII XIII • XIII A • XIII B XIII C • XIII D • XIV XV • XVI • XVIII XIX • XIX A • XIX B XX • XXI • XXII XXXIV • XXXV |
Contents |
Proposition 220 permitted the superior and municipal courts in a county to consolidate their operations if a majority of the superior court and municipal court judges in the county agreed to the consolidation. Under the terms of the proposition, if a consolidation was agreed to, the county's municipal courts would be abolished and all municipal court judges and employees would become superior court judges and employees.
Proposition 220 made a number of other related changes and what are known as "conforming changes" to the constitution; these had to do with the minimum qualifications of, and election of, judges in consolidated courts. Proposition 200 also made:
- Related and conforming changes to the membership of the Commission on Judicial Performance, which handles complaints against judges.
- Related, conforming, and other minor changes to the membership and terms of the California Judicial Council, which oversees and administers the state's courts.
Election results
| California Proposition 220 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage | ||||
 Yes
| 64.5% | |||
| No | 35.5% | |||
| Total votes | 100% | |||
Aftermath
Advocates for Proposition 220 said that by centralizing the administration of California's state court system, pressure on county finances would be relieved, since the 58 counties would no longer need to concern themselves with court upkeep, the repair and restoration of older courthouses, and overall financial accounting and management.[1]
In 2009, as tax revenues to the state went into freefall, court observers noted that the judicial centralization caused by Proposition 220 had created a series of unintended consequences. One of those consequences? "...shifting financial responsibility to Sacramento puts them in competition with other sectors of the state budget for increasingly limited dollars."[1]
As well, the California State Legislature began an investigation into "why the court system, headed by Ron George, has sharply expanded its administrative staff and spent many millions of dollars on a statewide computer system that isn't working. And those legislative inquiries are being egged on by a coalition of lower court judges who have been compelled to close their courtrooms periodically to save money."[1]
George defended the consolidation in an interview in 2009, saying, "Much of the loudest, much of the shrillest criticism – and I'm being charitable here – are from people who aren't fully informed. A lot of this is an effort to dismantle the statewide administration of justice because with the statewide administration of justice comes accountability."[1]
Constitutional changes
The changes made to the California Constitution as a result of the approval of Proposition 220 were:
- Section 16 of Article I was amended.
- Section 1 of Article VI was amended.
- Section 4 of Article VI was amended.
- Section 5 of Article VI was amended.
- Section 6 of Article VI was amended.
- Section 8 of Article VI was amended.
- Section 10 of Article VI was amended.
- Section 11 of Article VI was amended.
- Section 16 of Article VI was amended.
- Section 23 of Article VI was added.
Ballot language
The language that appeared on the ballot:
Trial court consolidation
This proposition, a constitutional amendment, permits superior and municipal courts within a county to consolidate their operations if approved by a majority of the superior court judges and a majority of municipal court judges in the county. If the judges approve consolidation of the courts, the municipal courts of the county would be abolished and all municipal court judges and employees would become superior court judges and employees.
A consolidated superior court would have jurisdiction in all matters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of either the superior or municipal courts. A consolidated superior court would have an appellate division to handle misdemeanors and infractions and most civil lawsuits involving disputes of $25,000 or less that are currently appealed from a municipal court to a superior court. The Legislature can change these amounts thereby changing the appeal jurisdiction.
Other changes
The proposition makes a number of other related and conforming changes to the Constitution with respect to the minimum qualifications and election of judges in consolidated courts. In addition, the measure makes: (1) related and conforming changes to the membership of the Commission on Judicial Performance, which handles complaints against judges; and (2) related, conforming, and other minor changes to the membership and terms of the California Judicial Council, which oversees and administers the state's courts.
Fiscal effect
The fiscal impact of this measure on the state is unknown and would ultimately depend on the number of superior and municipal courts that choose to consolidate. To the extent that most courts choose to consolidate, however, this measure would likely result in net savings to the state ranging in the millions to the tens of millions of dollars annually in the long term. The state could save money from greater efficiency and flexibility in the assignment of trial court judges, reductions in the need to create new judgeships in the future to handle increasing workload, improved management of court records, and reductions in general court administrative costs. At the same time, however, courts that choose to consolidate would result in additional state costs from increasing the salaries and benefits of municipal court judges and employees to the levels of superior court judges and employees. These additional costs would partially offset the savings.
See also
External links
| |||||
