California 2009-2010, 2nd Special Session Status: To Executive

SB 11 — Judges: employment benefits.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 9, Statutes of 2009-10 Second Extraordinary Session.

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

This bill died with 2009-2010, 2nd Special Session. It reached “To Executive” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

The California Constitution requires the Legislature to prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record. Existing law authorizes a county to deem judges and court employees as county employees for purposes of providing employment benefits. These provisions were held unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of the obligation of the Legislature to prescribe the compensation of judges of courts of record. This bill would provide that judges who received supplemental judicial benefits provided by a county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then paying the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on that date. The bill would authorize a county to terminate its obligation to provide benefits upon providing 180 days' written notice to the Administrative Director of the Courts and the impacted judges, but that termination would not be effective as to any judge during his or her current term while that judge continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the election of the county, when that judge leaves office. The bill also would authorize the county to elect to provide benefits for all judges in that county. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, and both the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary on or before December 31, 2009, analyzing the statewide benefits inconsistencies. This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. This bill would provide that nothing in its provisions shall require the Judicial Council to increase funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicial benefits or obligate the state or the Judicial Council to pay for benefits previously provided by the county, city and county, or the court.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 9, Statutes of 2009-10 Second Extraordinary Session.

  2. Approved by Governor.

  3. Enrolled. To Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. In Senate. To enrollment.

  5. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 69. Noes 3. Page 56.) To Senate.

  6. Read second time.

  7. (Ayes 71. Noes 1. Page 54.)

  8. Art. IV, Sec. 8(b), of Constitution dispensed with.

  9. Read first time.

  10. In Assembly.

  11. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 32. Noes 6. Page 32.) To Assembly.

  12. Read third time. Amended. (Page 29.)

  13. Placed on third reading.

  14. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 22. Noes 13. Page 42.)

  15. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  16. Senate Rule 29.3 suspended. (Ayes 23. Noes 13. Page 28.)

  17. Placed on third reading.

  18. Read second time.

  19. Withdrawn from committee.

  20. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS.

Sponsors

  • Steinberg · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Steinberg

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

SB 11 Steinberg Senate Third Reading By LIEU Second Extraordinary Session

Passed 80 Yea · 3 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 73308
Democratic 4001
Republican 3000
Total 80309
% of votes cast 87%3%0%10%
How each member voted (92)
Member Party Vote
Emmerson — Yea
Evans — Yea
Feuer — Not Voting
Davis — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Eng — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Bill — Yea
Berryhill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Berryhill — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Yamada — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Audra — Yea
Gaines — Nay
Bonnie — Not Voting
DeVore — Nay
Duvall — Not Voting
Fuentes — Nay
Fuller — Not Voting
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Not Voting
Hernandez — Yea
Huber — Yea
Bass — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Knight — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Logue — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Nava — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Price — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Not Voting
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Not Voting
Tran — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hill — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Ma — Yea
Monning — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Villines — Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Senate 3rd Reading SB11 Ducheny

Passed 32 Yea · 7 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 29700
Democratic 2001
Republican 1000
Total 32701
% of votes cast 80%18%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Wyland — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Correa — Nay
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Florez — Yea
Yee — Nay
Cedillo — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Yea
Huff — Nay
Runner — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Negrete — Nay
Leno — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Nay
McLeod — Nay
Oropeza — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wiggins — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
Benoit — Yea
Hollingsworth — Nay
Liu — Yea
Maldonado — Yea
Romero — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 23 Yea · 13 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 201204
Democratic 3000
Republican 0100
Total 231304
% of votes cast 58%33%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Cedillo — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Correa — Not Voting
Cox — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay
Yee — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Florez — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Runner — Nay
Cogdill — Not Voting
Hollingsworth — Nay
Huff — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wiggins — Nay
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Not Voting
Benoit — Nay
Harman — Nay
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Maldonado — Not Voting
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety labor
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 11 do?
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record. Existing law authorizes a county to deem judges and court employees as county employees for purposes of providing employment benefits. These provisions were held unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of the obligation of the Legislature to prescribe the compensation of judges of courts of record. This bill would provide that judges who received supplemental judicial benefits provided by a county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then paying the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on that date. The bill would authorize a county to terminate its obligation to provide benefits upon providing 180 days' written notice to the Administrative Director of the Courts and the impacted judges, but that termination would not be effective as to any judge during his or her current term while that judge continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the election of the county, when that judge leaves office. The bill also would authorize the county to elect to provide benefits for all judges in that county. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, and both the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary on or before December 31, 2009, analyzing the statewide benefits inconsistencies. This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. This bill would provide that nothing in its provisions shall require the Judicial Council to increase funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicial benefits or obligate the state or the Judicial Council to pay for benefits previously provided by the county, city and county, or the court.
Who sponsors SB 11?
SB 11 is sponsored by Steinberg.
What is the current status of SB 11?
This bill died with 2009-2010, 2nd Special Session. It reached “To Executive” 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 11?
Track SB 11 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 11

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 11

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →