California Proposition 220, Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation Amendment (June 1998)
| California Proposition 220 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date June 2, 1998 | |
| Topic State judiciary | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 220 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on June 2, 1998. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to provide for the consolidation of superior and municipal courts upon approval of a majority of the affected judges in a specific county. |
A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to provide for the consolidation of superior and municipal courts upon approval of a majority of the affected judges in a specific county. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 220 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
3,468,468 | 64.46% | ||
| No | 1,912,306 | 35.54% | ||
Measure design
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.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 220 was as follows:
| “ | Courts. Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
-Provides for consolidation of superior court and municipal court in county upon approval by majority of superior court judges and of municipal court judges in that county. _Upon consolidation, the superior court has jurisdiction over all matters now handled by superior and municipal court, municipal court judges become superior court judges, and the municipal court is abolished. _Makes related changes to constitutional provisions regarding municipal courts. -Provides for addition of nonvoting members to Judicial Council and lengthens some members' terms. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement provided by the Legislative Analyst Office was as follows:[1]
| “ |
Unknown net fiscal impact of the state from consolidation of superior and municipal courts. To the extent that most courts choose to consolidate, there would likely be annual net savings in the millions to tens of millions of dollars in the long term.[2] |
” |
Support
Supporters
- Senator Bill Lockyer (D)[1]
- Joel Fox, president of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[1]
- Sheriff Charles Byrd, president of California State Sheriffs' Association[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 220 can be found here.
Opposition
Opponents
- Mike Reynolds, author of the "Three Strikes" law[1]
- Lewis K. Uhler, president of National Tax Limitation Committee[1]
- Edward Jagels, Kern County District Attorney[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 220 can be found here.
Path to the ballot
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.
Proposition 220 was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via SCA 4.
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 58 | 1 |
| Senate | 38 | 0 |
See also
External links
 |
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 |
