California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

SB 39 — Suspension and allocation of judgeships.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law specifies the number of judges for the superior court of each county. Existing law allocates additional judgeships to the various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional judicial need in each county, as updated and approved by the Judicial Council, pursuant to the Update of Judicial Needs Study, based on specified criteria, including, among others, workload standards that represent the average amount of time of bench and nonbench work required to resolve each case type. This bill would require the suspension of 4 vacant judgeships, as defined, in superior courts with more authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need. The bill would require the allocation of 4 judgeships to superior courts with fewer authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need and would require the judgeships to be funded using existing appropriations for the compensation of superior court judges. The bill would require the suspension to be in accordance with a methodology approved by the Judicial Council, as specified, and would require the determination of a superior court's assessed judicial need to be in accordance with the above uniform standards and be based on the criteria described above. The bill would require the Judicial Council, if a vacant judgeship is eligible for suspension, to promptly notify the applicable courts, the Legislature, and the Governor that the judgeship will be suspended, subject to approval by the Governor. This bill would also make a statement of legislative intent regarding the authority of the Legislature, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of California.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. May 25 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing May 25.

  4. April 17 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  5. Set for hearing April 17.

  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 539.) (March 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  8. Set for hearing March 28.

  9. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  10. From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 5.

  11. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Sabrina Cervantes · Cosponsor
  • Obernolte · Cosponsor
  • Rodriguez · Cosponsor
  • Roth · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Roth

Co-sponsors (3)

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 39 do?
Existing law specifies the number of judges for the superior court of each county. Existing law allocates additional judgeships to the various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional judicial need in each county, as updated and approved by the Judicial Council, pursuant to the Update of Judicial Needs Study, based on specified criteria, including, among others, workload standards that represent the average amount of time of bench and nonbench work required to resolve each case type. This bill would require the suspension of 4 vacant judgeships, as defined, in superior courts with more authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need. The bill would require the allocation of 4 judgeships to superior courts with fewer authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need and would require the judgeships to be funded using existing appropriations for the compensation of superior court judges. The bill would require the suspension to be in accordance with a methodology approved by the Judicial Council, as specified, and would require the determination of a superior court's assessed judicial need to be in accordance with the above uniform standards and be based on the criteria described above. The bill would require the Judicial Council, if a vacant judgeship is eligible for suspension, to promptly notify the applicable courts, the Legislature, and the Governor that the judgeship will be suspended, subject to approval by the Governor. This bill would also make a statement of legislative intent regarding the authority of the Legislature, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of California.
Who sponsors SB 39?
SB 39 is sponsored by Cervantes, Sabrina (Democratic), Obernolte, Rodriguez, and Roth.
What is the current status of SB 39?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 39?
Track SB 39 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 39

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 39

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →