California Proposition 48, Remove References to "Municipal Courts" Amendment (2002)
| California Proposition 48 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2002 | |
| Topic Constitutional language and State judiciary | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 48 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 5, 2002. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the California Constitution to remove any reference to "municipal courts," which had been eliminated in 1998. |
A "no" vote opposed this measure amending the California Constitution to remove any reference to "municipal courts." |
Election results
|
California Proposition 48 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
4,849,108 | 72.90% | ||
| No | 1,802,783 | 27.10% | ||
Overview
Proposition 48 amended the California Constitution to delete references to the municipal courts. In 1998, California's voters approved Proposition 220, which authorized the elimination of the state's municipal courts. Proposition 48 in 2002 was viewed as largely a technical revision to the state's constitution, since it deleted references to courts that by 2002 no longer existed.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 48 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Amends Constitution to delete references to the municipal courts. These references are now obsolete due to the consolidation of superior and municipal trial courts into unified superior courts previously approved by voters. • Deletes from Constitution the provisions providing for municipal courts in each county and vesting judicial power of the state in municipal courts. • Makes certain conforming and related changes in Constitution to reflect consolidation. • Provides that the constitutional provision governing the transition process to a unified superior court will be automatically repealed on January 1, 2007. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ | No additional cost to state or local government.[2] | ” |
Support
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 48 were signed by Assemblymember Howard Wayne (D):[1]
| “ |
This is a non-controversial change that updates the California Constitution. It passed each house of the Legislature unanimously. Currently, the state Constitution provides for two types of trial courts, superior and municipal courts, in each county. But due to unification of the trial courts, there are no longer any municipal courts in California. However, the California Constitution still contains provisions dealing with municipal courts. These provisions are obsolete and need to be removed. This proposition deletes these obsolete municipal court references from the California Constitution. The proposition implements recommendations of the California Law Revision Commission, which was directed by law to recommend repeal of provisions that have become obsolete because of trial court unification.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 48 were signed by Gary B. Wesley, co-chair of Voter Information Alliance (VIA) and Melvin L. Emerich, co-chair of Voter Information Alliance (VIA):[1]
| “ |
In this measure, the State Legislature is proposing that we permanently delete from the California Constitution any provision for 'municipal courts.' The main drawback to the proposal is that it would preclude the re-establishment of municipal courts in any of California’s 58 counties. Why might a county want to re-establish a 'municipal court' below its 'superior court'? One reason might be to save money. Superior Court Judges are paid more. An even more important reason, though, is that some counties (or even the State Legislature sometime in the future) may realize that having all of the trial court judges in a county part of the same 'superior court' creates at least the appearance of unfairness. Allow us to explain. Trial courts handle two kinds of cases that have been particularly affected by the 'consolidation' of the municipal and superior courts in the 58 counties. The first kind of case involves a criminal charge lodged by a local or state prosecutor. A criminal charge may be a 'felony' or a less-serious 'misdemeanor.' Both kinds of criminal charges potentially call for examination of the case by two or more judges. A felony case is initiated by the filing of a charge which is presented either to a local criminal grand jury or, in over 95% of the cases, to a local judge sitting as a 'magistrate.' If the grand jury or magistrate decides that the prosecutor has presented enough evidence of guilt (i.e., probable cause) to justify a trial, the prosecutor is authorized to proceed to trial. At that point, the decision to allow the prosecutor to proceed may be challenged by the accused. Here we encounter a problem created by court consolidation. The judge who will hear the challenge will almost always be a judge in the very same court as the judge whose decision is being challenged! A misdemeanor case is ordinarily set for trial without any hearing to determine whether a trial appears justified. If you are convicted in a misdemeanor trial, you may appeal; however, the appeal is decided by a panel of 3 judges from the very same 'superior court' in which you would have already been convicted! Finally, a civil case which seeks $25,000 or less is called a 'limited jurisdiction case.' An appeal from a judgment in such a case, once again, is decided by a panel of 3 judges from the very same 'superior court' in which you would have lost the case! The basis for seeking review of what a judge has done in a case is that the judge ruled or acted wrongly. A one-court system which asks judges of the very same court to correct or rebuke their colleagues creates at least the appearance of unfairness. Separate municipal and superior courts in the counties offered more 'checks and balances' than the consolidated superior courts which have now been established. Some counties (or the State Legislature) may wish, in the future, to return to the former system. For these reasons, we recommend that voters not permanently delete 'municipal courts' from the California Constitution.[2] |
” |
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.
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 48 on the ballot via Assembly Constitutional Amendment 15 of the 2001-2002 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 88, Statutes of 2002).
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 72 | 0 |
| Senate | 38 | 0 |
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 48
- Smart Voter information about Prop 48
- Official declaration of the November 5, 2002 vote
- Top Ten Donors to Proposition 48
Footnotes
