Gains for the Suffering Courts

The Legislature has taken steps that should improve the state’s beleaguered courts. Bread-and-butter issues of court administration and funding are sometimes neglected by lawmakers in favor of headline-grabbing bills. The need, however, is pressing. The crush of cases that California’s trial and appellate courts have experienced in recent years, combined with skimpy state and local funding, prompted judges in Los Angeles and other counties last spring to threaten to end some court services.

There now appears to be progress toward a new formula for court funding and operation after years of little movement. A proposed constitutional amendment approved by the Legislature last week, SCA4, would permit superior and municipal courts in the same county to eliminate or consolidate duplicative or overlapping administrative functions. The measure does not require the governor’s signature but does require voter approval; it will appear on the November ballot.

The Legislature also voted to add 21 new trial judges and five new appellate justices, the first expansion of the state’s judiciary since 1987. With caseload increases pushed by the three-strikes law, among other factors, these additions are badly needed. The legislation providing the new judges awaits Gov. Pete Wilson’s approval. Still pending before the Legislature is a key measure that would restore predictable funding to the operation of the state’s trial courts by capping the counties’ contributions, raising filing fees and increasing the state’s funding contribution.

Lawmakers did voters no service last week by passing a measure that would provide less information on the ballot when Supreme Court and appeal court justices stand for retention election. AB1936 would return appellate retention ballots to pre-1993 language by removing reference to the length of the judicial term, 12 years in some cases--information many judges and court analysts believe led voters in 1994 to nearly reject some justices seeking retention. No agreement has been reached on providing voters with information about appellate justices that would help in fairly evaluating those seeking another term. In the absence of such a provision, this bill would largely serve the interests of the state’s appellate justices, rather than the public’s. The governor should veto it.