California Proposition 10, Unification of Courts Amendment (1982)
| California Proposition 10 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic State judiciary |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
California Proposition 10 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 2, 1982. It was defeated.
A “yes” vote supported allowing municipal and justice courts of a county to unify within its superior court, subject to the approval of the majority of voters. |
A “no” vote opposed allowing municipal and justice courts of a county to unify within its superior court, subject to the approval of the majority of voters. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 10 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,314,700 | 34.66% | ||
|
|
4,362,767 | 65.34% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 10 was as follows:
| “ | Unifying Superior, Municipal, and Justice Courts. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | UNIFYING SUPERIOR, MUNICIPAL, AND JUSTICE COURTS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Provides Legislature may authorize a county to unify municipal and justice courts within superior court upon approval by majority vote of county electors. Upon unification, provides for municipal and, unless Legislature provides otherwise, justice court judges to become superior court judges; authorizes Legislature to provide powers and duties of former municipal and justice court judges during balance of terms; requires Legislature to prescribe number and compensation of judges and court enforcement officers and provide for clerk, other officers, and employees; establishes original and appellate jurisdiction of superior court; specifies other matters. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: No impact until implemented by legislation and approval vote in county. When implemented, depending on legislative action, there would be state and/or county increased salary and retirement costs due to higher salaries of judges elevated. There could be unknown administrative costs or savings, depending on implementation. Fiscal impact could vary substantially from county to county. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the California Constitution
A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
