No More Delay on Unified Court

The 229 sitting judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court have been bickering for more than a year on whether to join forces with local municipal courts, in response to voter wishes that courtrooms and public money be used more efficiently.

California voters passed Proposition 220 in 1998, allowing the trial courts in each county to unify, if they choose, into a single superior court. Under unification, a municipal court ceases to exist and its judges are elevated to the superior court. In theory, judges in unified courts will have less down time because any judge will be able to handle any trial matter, meaning faster case disposition. A unified court means one case-filing scheme instead of two, one set of forms and rules instead of two and one administrative staff--resulting in cost savings.

So far, courts in 54 of California’s 58 counties have opted to unify. Los Angeles has not, but it should.

Some Los Angeles Superior Court judges, peeved at the prospect of handling less lofty municipal court matters, have whined and put forward reason after reason why the courts should not unify. Unification was defeated in a formal vote of the Superior Court judges last year and again in June. Judges in the county’s 24 municipal court districts backed the move, but a majority of judges in both the Superior and the municipal courts must agree. With another vote likely toward the end of this year, the battle in the halls of justice has gotten quite nasty.

Those opposing unification are right in arguing that the expected cost savings are unknown, unproven and at best some years off. They also fear distracting and costly litigation under the Voting Rights Act alleging that eliminating locally elected municipal court judges and electing all Superior Court judges countywide could dilute the voting power of minorities, particularly Latinos. Although such a lawsuit might well be filed, its success is far from a sure thing.

It is clear, however, that the longer the Superior Court resists, the more it and the taxpayer will lose. Already, the court has missed out on a share of $35 million the Legislature made available to unified county courts. Los Angeles trial courts could have used that money for judicial training and to upgrade their outdated information systems. Another $35-million pot will be available next year for unified courts.

Pressure is rising; a report due next month from the county bar is likely to urge unification and turn up the heat on the court. The judges should act before county courts--and the public they serve--lose out on more state money, which they can ill afford to pass up.