California bill drives wedge in judiciary
February 10, 2012
California: A contentious bill in the California General Assembly is wreaking havoc on the state's judiciary, prompting public opinions from judges. The bill is AB 1208, and depending on whose side you are on, it could be described in a number of ways. The main provisions would allocate 100 percent of funds to the Superior Courts that is budgeted for the Superior Courts and allow those courts to approve or reject major measures adopted by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). If you are Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, you might view this bill as an assault on the separation of powers between the branches of government, or an attack on the AOC and the Judicial Council of California, the policy-making bodies of the state courts. To express her frustration with the bill, the Chief Justice went public with her disapproval, accusing the legislature of spreading misinformation about the bureaucracy of the judicial branch.[1]
If you are a member of the opposition group the Alliance of California Judges, you would probably support AB 1208, and view it as an opportunity to give trial courts a platform. The alliance formed in 2011 during the CCMS scandal, which was viewed as a bloated bureaucratic system that wasted precious dollars in the judiciary's budget. (We first covered this in Supreme Weekly: Tensions mounting in the states in March.) Since it formed, the alliance has been critical of the leadership of the AOC.
As a symbol of the trouble, AOC director Ron Overholt resigned his position yesterday. In his resignation email, Overholt said, "The position of Administrative Director of the Courts has become a lightning rod for controversy, impacting the focus on budget discussions, Judicial Council governance of the judicial branch, and the AOC itself."[2]
Some hope that Overholt's resignation will calm the waters in the judiciary. Still, with a struggle between the powers that be, upstart judges taking on the system, and the involvement of the state legislature, one should not expect a resolution any time soon.
Footnotes
| |||||
