Lack of Court Space Keeps County Out of Race for New Judges

Despite a 16-month civil court backlog, San Diego is sitting out the annual battle here among California’s urban counties for new Superior Court judgeships.

The reason, county officials and judges say, is that San Diego has run out of courtrooms.

With nine Superior Court judges allotted to San Diego a year ago still unappointed--six because of a lack of space--it makes little political sense for county officials to fight for positions they cannot fill.

“There’s just no room at the inn,” said Patricia Gayman, the county’s lobbyist here.

So while Los Angeles, Orange and other counties scramble for judgeships--and face the possibility that no new positions will be approved this year--San Diego watches from the sidelines.

San Diego Superior Court Judge William L. Todd Jr., chairman of the judges’ facilities committee, said it is frustrating for the county to sit out the fight for additional judgeships when the new positions are so badly needed.

He said the effects of the shortage in San Diego show up most in civil trial delays. The courts are required by law to provide speedy trials for criminal defendants, and therefore must give those cases priority.

But no such deadlines apply to civil suits, and it now takes about 16 months for a civil case to come to trial after both attorneys say they’re ready. That delay is up from about 11 months four years ago.

“Every month it’s just slipping away, and we can’t help it because we don’t have any space,” Todd said.

The county now has 48 Superior Court judges, 27 short of the number the state Judicial Council says San Diego needs. That shortage could be shaved by nine if the county could find room for the unfilled judgeships to which it is already entitled.

To make room for those judges, the county is moving the family and probate courts to leased quarters on 6th Avenue in downtown San Diego and is remodeling the East County Regional Center in El Cajon. Those changes should provide 12 new courtrooms.

But for serious, long-term improvement in the situation, the county is pinning its hopes on passage of Proposition A on the November ballot, which would raise the sales tax a half penny per dollar for five years to pay for new criminal justice buildings.

Although backers of Proposition A, placed on the ballot by the county supervisors, are stressing the need for new jails--playing on the desire of voters to put criminals behind bars--half of the $420 million that would be raised by the tax increase would actually go to courthouse construction, providing room for 58 new judges.

But it appears that San Diego, even if it had space for new judges, might have fallen short in an attempt to get them this year.

This week, a statewide compromise on trial court expansion appeared to be crumbling, and lobbyists for most of the major urban counties were up in arms.

Los Angeles County, which the state Judicial Council says needs 43 more judicial positions--it now has 278--was trying to get 28 more approved this year. Orange County, which the council says should add nine to its 54 judges, is trying for six. San Diego County, whose judge shortage makes it the most beleaguered of the state’s major metropolitan areas, asked for no new Superior Court judges. The municipal court was seeking five positions, although the county Board of Supervisors only asked for two.

Legislative compromises on how many new judges would be approved and which counties would get them began to fall apart when conference committees made up of members of both houses adjourned this week without issuing a report on the court-related legislation they were considering.

Legislative leaders confirm the stalemate, but publicly offer few explanations.

State Sen. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego), who chaired the conference committee on municipal court judges, said he believes the Democrats were reluctant to create new judgeships for fear that Gov. George Deukmejian might score political points by filling them in an election year.

“What they told me was that they do not agree with the formula that the Judicial Council uses to determine the number of judges a district needs, and they did not feel they had time to do their own study,” Ellis said.

“My personal opinion is they didn’t want the governor to get the appointments before the election.”

Another point of contention between the Democrat-controlled Legislature and the Republican governor has been funding for trial courts. Last year, the Legislature passed a bill that would have shifted most of the trial courts’ operating costs from the counties to the state.

But that bill contained no money to pay for the change. Deukmejian, upon signing it, said he would only approve funding when the Legislature enacted other reforms to cut down court costs, among them smaller juries, streamlined jury selection and use of videotaped transcripts.

So far, the Legislature has been slow in enacting the reforms sought by Deukmejian, and the governor’s own bill funding the cost shift and making reforms was killed early this year without even getting a hearing.

Some Democratic leaders have said they are reluctant to create any new judgeships until the funding shift has been accomplished.

Although the state now pays judges’ salaries, counties assume about 90% of court operating costs.

Al Lipson, deputy director of Deukmejian’s Office of Planning and Research, said counties would have received $527,000 per judicial position under the governor’s bill, essentially shifting all major costs of operating the courts to the state.