California’s Judicial Branch has several components, including three levels of courts: trial or superior courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. The Judicial Council of California administers the court system. The State Bar is also considered part of the Judicial Branch, as are several branch agencies. All were put in place by either the state constitution or the Legislature to protect our constitutional rights and liberties by resolving disputes, and interpreting and applying the law impartially, consistently, and independently.
California’s first constitution was drafted in six weeks by 48 delegates gathered in Monterey, and Article VI of the document provided for a Supreme Court consisting of a chief justice and two associate justices. These first three justices would be elected by the state Legislature, but thereafter the voting public would elect justices to six-year terms.
The first Supreme Court convened in rented rooms at a former San Francisco Hotel in March 1850, six months before California joined the United States. Most decisions in those early days were not published.
In 1862, the court was expanded to five justices with terms of 10 years, and the type of cases they would handle was also expanded. A state constitutional convention in 1878-1879 changed the judiciary again. Six associate justices and the chief justice would serve 12-year terms, and opinions were now required in writing.
The Supreme Court soon had a backlog of cases. Through the 1880s, commissioners were appointed to help, but this proved inadequate. The Courts of Appeal were created in 1903 by the Legislature, which approved an amendment to the state constitution. Their purpose was to relieve congestion in the courts by dissolving the Supreme Court Commission and creating three District Courts of Appeal—one each in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Each would have three justices, to be appointed by the governor at first, but starting in 1907, the justices would be elected. In each district, justices would draw lots to see what term length they would serve: 4, 8, or 12 years. Their annual salaries were set at a generous $7,000.
In 1926 the Judicial Council was established to improve the administration of justice and to enact rules of court practice and procedure. The State Bar was created the following year. A few years later, the current system of governor-appointed justices who then served but stood for election at the next general election was adopted.
In 1997, the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center was created and made part of the judicial system. The center represents anyone who cannot afford to hire appellate counsel in capital cases. Also in that year, the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act went into operation to provide a stable source of funding for lower courts. Trial court costs were consolidated at the state level and counties make quarterly contributions to fund them.
In 1998, voters approved Proposition 220, which allowed judges in each county to merge their superior and municipal courts. Within three years, all counties had done so, and the trial court level is now composed entirely of superior courts. The ownership of all courts is being transferred to the state from counties as well.
After years of discussing ways to best unify the California courts statewide, the Administrative Office of the Courts began in earnest to develop the California Court Case Management System (CCMS) in 2003. Eight years later, after long delays and hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns, the system remained largely incomplete and at the center of an intense power struggle and raging debate over judicial branch priorities.
A major reorganization of the California Rules of the Court was approved by the council and took effect in 2007. The reorganization involved the reordering and renumbering of more than 1,000 rules and 38 standards of judicial administration.
Fact Sheet (The People’s Legal Center) (pdf)
Phoenix Program: Statewide Human Resources and Financial System Upgrade and Other Services (Judicial Branch home)
California’s court system is the largest in the nation and processes over 10 million cases per year, both criminal and civil actions. The courts are the main component of the judicial branch, and the state has three levels: Superior Courts, Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The mission of all is to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions in a fair, efficient manner, applying the law impartially and consistently.
Trial courts, or Superior Courts, have nearly 450 locations, searchable online by zip code. A Superior Court can be found in each of California’s 58 counties, and many counties host dozens of locations. Contacting these courts is the first step in getting information about a trial case, past and current.
Superior Courts have jurisdiction over criminal cases from traffic matters up to misdemeanors and felonies, as well as civil cases including family law, probate, juvenile and general civil matters. Some trial courts have special departments to handle family law, juvenile and probate cases, as well as domestic violence or nonviolent drug offenses. Judges or juries may decide cases based on testimony and other evidence. The judgment may be appealed. In criminal cases, the punishment for a guilty verdict can range from fines or community service to imprisonment and death. (All death sentences are automatically referred to the state Supreme Court for review.) In civil cases the court can enforce its decision with wage garnishments or liens. Superior Courts have an appellate division where small claims and limited civil cases involving less than $25,000 are decided.
The Legislature decides the number of judges in each Superior Court; currently about 2,175 serve throughout the state. Judges are appointed by the governor when a vacancy occurs. They serve six-year terms and are elected by county in general elections.
The courts offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the form of arbitration or mediation by a neutral party. Online help is also available in English, Spanish, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese to help Californians navigate the legal system, in areas such as small claims, divorce, family law, harassment, eviction, name changes, seniors & conservatorship, and traffic issues.
The state’s Courts of Appeal are divided into six geographic districts, and three districts have multiple divisions. Courts of Appeal have appellate jurisdiction over cases originating in the state’s Superior Courts, meaning that anyone with a judgment from a trial or proceeding can ask this court to review that judgment. The appeals court does not retry these cases; they review them to ensure that the law was applied correctly and fairly. In addition, the Courts of Appeal have original jurisdiction over cases of habeas corpus (challenging the confinement of someone), mandamus (forcing an official duty), prohibition (restraining action), certiorari (review of a judicial action), and challenges to decisions of certain state boards: the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Public Employment Relations Board, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and some decisions of the Public Utilities Commission.
Each case is decided by a panel of three judges: one presiding justice and two associate justices. Of the judgments rendered, about 9% are certified for publication, usually because they clarify a legal point.
Justices of the Courts of Appeal are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. At the end of their terms and in gubernatorial elections, the justices must also be approved by the voters. Currently, 105 justices serve the appellate court system.
The state Supreme Court holds the highest authority in the system, issuing more than 100 opinions each year on legal questions. The Supreme Court must review all cases that result in a death penalty. According to the state constitution, cases decided by the state’s Courts of Appeal may be reviewed at the Supreme Court’s discretion, either in whole or to decide an important legal question and maintain uniformity in the law. Cases from the appellate courts are petitioned for review, and the justices decide to accept or decline the case at their weekly conferences. Less than 5% are accepted. Supreme Court case information can be found online, and questions about the petition process are answered at the Practices & Procedures page.
All Supreme Court opinions are available at the court’s website and are published in print. The daily proceedings of the court, including calendars, notices, filings, weekly summaries and minutes are updated throughout the day. Docket information on every case before the court is updated hourly.
The chief justice and six associate justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for 12-year terms by the governor after review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation. Appointees are then confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. At the end of their 12-year terms, justices may also stand for election and continue to serve.
The Judicial Council of California is the administrative office of the court system. The Judicial Council has 21 voting members and six advisory members and is chaired by the state’s chief justice. Their Administrative Office provides policy support, handling budgets, fiscal services, technology, education, human resources, research and much more.
Branch agencies of the Judicial Branch include the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, which exists to represent anyone who can’t afford to hire appellate counsel in capital cases; the Commission on Judicial Performance, charged with investigating judicial misconduct or incapacity and imposing discipline or making recommendations; and the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which approves the governor’s appointments to higher courts, or not.
Finally the State Bar of California is also considered part of the Judicial Branch, although it is a public corporation. The State Bar examines all candidates who want to practice law, and all attorneys licensed in California must join the State Bar. It formulates and enforces rules of professional conduct.
California Judicial Branch (Judicial Branch website)
Fact Sheet, California Judicial Branch (pdf)
About California Courts (Judicial Branch website)
Visitors’ Guide to the California Superior Courts (pdf)
Of the $3.11 billion allocated to California’s judicial system, the trial courts get $2.82 billion through the consolidation of funding set up by the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act. This supports court employee pay and benefits, court-appointed advocates and counsel, interpreters, security, jury services, several projects and programs, as well as statewide administration and technology infrastructure. The Courts of Appeal get $208.39 million, the Supreme Court gets $46.22 million, the Judicial Council gets $139.49 million, and $14.7 million goes to the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. A $350 million cut, imposed in 2011, has not yet been allocated among these branches.
The state’s general fund supplies $1.27 billion, and the Trial Court Trust Fund provides $1.47 billion. Other trust funds, construction funds, and various sources supply the balance.
3-Year Budget (pdf)
Budget Cuts in the Courts
It’s no secret that the state of California faces a fiscal crises and many areas of government are enduring slashes in their budgets. But cuts to the judiciary “put public safety on the chopping block,” according to the San Francisco Examiner. In July 2011, the paper noted that 41% San Francisco’s Superior Court staff might be laid off, and 40% of courtrooms could close within months due to the pending and permanent $350 million cut that the judicial branch faces.
“Courts will prioritize criminal cases and urgent civil matters such as restraining orders and evictions, but hearing could still take months. As for lower priority cases, they are out of luck,” the alarming editorial reads. Family law cases “will take between eight and 18 months longer to settle after 200 court clerks, court reporters, research attorneys and management employees are no longer on the job and 25 courtrooms have been closed, according to Michael Yuen, the Superior Court’s chief executive officer.”
The paper quotes the Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye: “Courts are not a luxury. . . . They are the heart of our democracy. These cuts threaten access to justice for all.”
In 2011-2012, California targeted the court system and its $3.5 billion budget for $350 million in operational cuts and $310 million in transfers from its construction fund. Allocations from the state’s General Fund to the courts has declined 30% since 2009. These reductions come on top of $652 million in cuts during the previous four years. The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office suggested that the court could have saved some money by privatizing some its services such as contracting out interpreting services, requiring competitive bidding for court security and substituting electronic equipment for court reporters.
An op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times also reprinted the quote from the chief justice, and points to a nationwide trend. “Strapped for cash, courts have reduced hours of operation, fired staff, frozen salaries and hiring, increased filing fees, diverted resources from civil trials—which in some cases suspended jury trials—and, in the worst cases, closed courts entirely.”
The San Francisco editorial pointed out that in that city, “At a time when the numbers of homicides, shooting victims, auto thefts, auto burglaries and domestic violence incidents have increased by double digits . . . the City’s judicial system is about to be gutted.”
The Los Angeles Times writers, Adam Skaggs and Maria da Silva, also bemoaned the timing of the cuts: “These cuts are coming at precisely the time when courts desperately need more, not fewer, resources. State courts confront elevated numbers of foreclosure filings, consumer debt proceedings and domestic violence cases—all of which rise in tough economic times.”
“Unlike other government agencies, courts cannot simply cut some services; they have a constitutional duty to resolve criminal and civil cases.” Skaggs and da Silva point to an economic impact study that predicts that from 2010 to 2013, “the county [Los Angeles] and state would suffer estimated losses of more than $30 billion from a combination of lost jobs, lost payroll taxes from laid-off court and legal service personnel, a decline in legal services revenues and uncertainty among litigants. The study said cuts aimed at short-term saving will have negative and ‘long-term structural consequences for the Los Angeles and California economies.”
California Budget Impact on Courts Too Mighty to Fathom (by Eric Winkler, One Legal)
State Cuts Threaten to Blunt Justice System (San Francisco Examiner editorial)
America’s Judiciary: Courting Disaster (by Adam Skaggs and Maria da Silva of the Brennan Center for Justice, Los Angeles Times op-ed)
Judicial Branch Budget Cuts (California Courts)
A Billion-Dollar Boondoggle?
The Judicial Council began talking about a statewide computer system in 1998 after voters approved Proposition 220 and began the process of unifying California’s Municipal and Superior Courts. A year earlier, the Legislature had established the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and put in place a funding scheme that functioned at the state, not local, level.
By 2003, the
The deadline was 2009 and the price tag was $260 million. As of 2012, it was a mess. More than 200 representatives from 29 countries have worked on the project and when it is completed in 2016 it will have cost $1.9 billion.
The California State Auditor said the project was poorly planned from the outset. His 2011 report said the
And if it is finally, successfully deployed, the auditor said, it probably won’t be around for long. “The useful life of CCMS may be very short after it begins to achieve a positive return on investment in fiscal year 2019-20. The technology will be almost 10 years old when fully deployed. Our IT expert believes there is significant risk that the technology could be outdated shortly after its full deployment in fiscal year 2016-17.”
But, as Justice Terence Bruiniers, a state appellate court judge, pointed out, not everything in the auditor’s report was negative. “I think it’s important to emphasize that the audit does not recommend ending the project,” he wrote.
While substantial questions have been raised about the project’s future, scarce dollars during a crushing budget deficit are being diverted from day-to-day running of the courts to develop the project. Courthouses are closing, court date delays are growing longer, staff is being let go, lines are lengthening and fears have arisen about the collapse of the judicial system in parts of the state.
Superior Courts in Los Angeles and Sacramento have expressed an unwillingness to implement the system in its current form if, or when, it is up and running.
In a recent survey of state judges circulated by Justice Arthur Scotland, Sacramento Judge Kevin McCormick ripped the system that started out with a price tag of $260 million and which, if some worst-case scenarios come true, could go as high as $3 billion. “Not [a] single dollar should be spent on this system until it is certain the expenditures will not cause court closures, reduced hours or layoffs of courtroom staff. Expending any money on a computer system with such a flawed financial history is unjustified.”
Audit: State Courts Computer System Massively Over Budget (by Ryan Gabrielson, California Watch)
Computer Mess Jeopardizes Court's Political Clout (by Paul Ellis, Associated Press)
California Court Case Management System (CCMS) (Judicial Branch website)
Consultant for Court IT System Is Facing Lawsuits in California Over Software Systems (by Bill Girdner and David Tartre, Courthouse News Service)
Judge Pines v. AOC Finance (Courthouse News Service)
Auditor Review of CCMS (State Auditor) (pdf)
Judge Bangs on Bureaucrats' Door (by Bill Girdner, Courthouse News Service)
Review of the California Court Case Management System (Office of the State Chief Information Officer) (pdf)
Audit Finds California Courts' Computer Project Far Over Budget and Urges Suspension (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)
California A Judicial Hellhole?
A hellhole? Who would call the state that?
The Americans for Tort Reform Association (ATRA) would. ATRA publishes “Judicial Hellholes,” an annual report ranking states and counties according to their “high degree of lawsuit abuse, thanks to unfair judges, court rules, and underlying liability laws.” In their report released in December 2011, ATRA rank California 2nd only to the Philadelphia area in hellholishness.
“Small business-destroying lawsuits filed by professional plaintiffs have spread throughout California,” the executive summary of Judicial Hellholes reads. “These individuals have filed thousands of extortionate claims against popular family-owned restaurants, book stores and salons, demanding thousands of dollars to settle allegations of technical violations of disabled access standards, and California’s courts have enabled the extortion. Recent court decisions demonstrate that California remains friendly to consumer lawsuits (even after voters attempted to rein in abuse), class actions, and high awards.”
Serial litigants are a problem in many places, but the report maintains that California “clearly illustrates the direct impact of excessive litigation on job creation and the ability of businesses to survive and thrive.” ATRA also blames the state’s Legislature in creating this climate because it “rarely acts to limit lawsuit abuse.”
Tort reform is a popular conservative hobby horse. As Los Angeles Times writer Michael Hiltzik explained: “The public's on board because it's easy to hate lawyers. Doctors and hospitals love it because they hate to get sued. Insurance companies love it because the less money they pay out to plaintiffs, the more they get to keep. Republicans love it because trial lawyers give three-quarters of their political donations to Democrats. And Democrats pay it lip service because they're afraid to look like lawyer lovers.”
Tort reform often takes the form of limiting class-action lawsuits, capping damage awards, eliminating or reducing punitive awards, and making it more difficult to gain access to the courts. A tort is a civil harm.
Although California is the state tort reform supporters love to hate, it has been edging closer to the national norm through recent court decisions and legislation. In August 2011, the state Supreme Court ruled in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions limited personal injury plaintiffs from receiving full recovery of their medical costs if their insurance company settled for a smaller, negotiated amount. In effect, an uninsured person can sue and win a lot more money that an insured person who pays regular insurance premiums. The decision overturned a century-old standard known as “the collateral source rule” that a plaintiff receive the reasonable value of medical treatment.
The next month, the 5th District Court of Appeal ruled in Stennett v. Tam that California’s landmark 1975 law capping recovery of non-economic damages at $250,000 was proper justification for reducing a $6 million court award by 96% in a wrongful death suit filed by the wife of a man who died of alleged negligence in a hospital. The state Supreme Court declined to review the case, which challenged the constitutionality of Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). MICRA is considered a national model in the area of medical tort reform.
Alleged lax attention to tort reform by the Legislature and courts in California is not the only reason that California wound up in ATRA’s number 2 position. Joseph Perkins, in a CalWatchdog article, gave another reason found in ATRA’s report: “California has one of the country’s most easily exploited consumer protection laws . . . law firms from around the country descend on the Golden State to file specious class action suits against deep pocket targets.”
An example used by ATRA and CalWatchdog is a 2011 suit brought against Taco Bell, an Irvine, CA based company, by an Alabama law firm “on behalf of every person in the United States who purchased a beef taco from Taco Bell.” The claim? The beef wasn’t all beef. “Beasley Allen [the law firm] no doubt expected Taco Bell to reach some sort of out of court settlement—for which the chain almost certainly was insured—rather than fight the law firm’s frivolous class action.”
“But Taco Bell not only refused to settle, it also spent as much as $4 million on an advertising campaign assuring its customers that its taco filling consists of ‘88 percent premium ground beef and 12 percent signature recipe.’ ” CalWatchdog continued. “Taco Bell’s aggressive counterattack persuaded Beasley Allen to withdraw its lawsuit. Unfortunately, the chain’s response to the firm’s shakedown suit was more the exception than the rule for corporate defendants in California.”
“Lawsuit abuse imposes a hidden tax on each and everyone in the way of slower economic growth, fewer jobs created, and higher prices for consumer goods,” Perkins summed up. “That’s why California desperately needs legal reform. The Golden State could hardly afford tort-related costs during economic boom times. And it absolutely cannot afford those costs during these hard economic times.”
Not everyone agrees that tort reform equals cost control. A 2007 report on medical tort reform by the non-profit organization Public Citizen show that the number and value of malpractice payments have been flat since 1991 and declined since 2001; patients do not win big jury awards for frivolous claims; and patient safety is a real crisis. A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) identified what may be a better explanation for rising costs, at least in the medical profession. Malpractice insurance premiums jumped 15% per year from 1986 to 2002, the study found, while the average damage award rose only 8% annually. The CBO concluded that the rise in insurance rates was directly related to losses the insurance companies suffered in their investments, not in payouts for lawsuits.
Judicial Hellholes 2011-2012 (ATR Foundation)
California Is a Judicial Hellhole (by Joseph Perkins, CalWatchdog)
Tort Reform Is the Healthcare Debate's Frivolous Sideshow (by Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times)
CA Supreme Court Comes Down in Favor of Big Insurance, Against Consumers (by J.G. Preston, California Progress Report)
Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions Inc.—Full Opinion
Stinnett v. Tam (Leagle.com)
Meme-Busting: Tort Reform = Cost Control (by Aaron Carroll, Washington Post)
The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax (Public Citizen) (pdf)
The Return of the Republican Malpractice Frauds (Daily Kos)
Who Should Run the Courts?
It seemed like a good idea at the time. In 1997, California had 58 separate county trial courts, each funded at the local level. Services were as uneven between them as their funding bases. And so, arguably, was the standard of justice. Unifying the courts in a single system would save money and serve justice as well.
But is that true? The state beefed up the authority of the Judicial Council and created an elaborate bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts (
Fourteen years later, judges in the local courts were in open conflict with the
Decentralize the State Court System
On March 15, 2011, Judge Maryanne G. Gillard, put it succinctly on behalf of the Association of California Judges which she heads: “The AOC is simply out of control. Its excesses have harmed the judiciary's reputation immeasurably,” Gillard wrote in the Daily Journal, a legal publication.
Gillard says the Alliance is not out to dismantle statewide rules that ensure the fair and consistent administration of justice. They don’t want to tamper with the Judicial Council’s constitutional rule making authority. But they want control of the judiciary returned to judges and believe that can be accomplished with relatively simple legislation that outlines the authority of trial judges over budgeting and policy matters.
Critics of the
While the Information Services Division announces new hires daily to work on its failed billion-dollar Court Case Management System, critical courtroom staff are being laid off. Courthouses are being closed and hours curtailed even as new building are being built. Backlogs of cases are piling up and hours are spent in courthouse lines to accomplish simple legal tasks.
While the
The Centralized Court System Works
Supporters of centralized control of the California judiciary say the
Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County agrees. “When times are good you don't hear a lot of criticism,” he said during a panel discussion of trial judges in September 2011. “When times are bad the criticism is brought to the fore.”
The
The centralizing process was begun in the late ‘90s by Chief Justice Ronald M. George with the goal of having a uniformity of rules in the courts and a fair, stable statewide funding base for the courts. In the process, two parallel court systems with duplicative activities and 85 separate trial courts were brought under central control. Many think it was a good idea then, and now.
Supporters of the current system, like Appellate Justice Douglas Miller, argue that the council and its administrative office are in a constant state of reform and that there is no need for more trial judge autonomy to affect change. “We have a new chief justice, new members of the judicial council and changes at the
The lightening rod for critics of the Judicial Council and the
Untold benefits are possible when the 58 trial courts and their 70 plus computer systems can talk to each other, sharing vital information and streamlining court processes. Judges and law enforcement will be able to have real-time access to each other.
Who Really Runs the Judicial Branch? (by Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard, director of the Alliance of California Judges, published in the Daily Journal)
California Court Administrators Clash With Judges Over Cuts (by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times)
Court News Roundup and Open Thread (
Order in the Courts? How About in the Judicial Council and the AOC? (Judicial Council Watcher)
31 Days – The Chief Justice & Judicial Council’s Crafty, Predictable Ploy (Judicial Council Watcher)
Trial Judges Question Direction of Courts (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)
Should Judges Be Branded Liberal or Conservative?
California is one of 39 states that elect judges. Should it matter whether a judge’s politics and values are liberal or conservative? Republican or Democrat?
Partisanship Matters: California Judges Push Their Own Agenda
“Many judges sitting on California courts . . . are political opportunists who have a political agenda,” says the home page of the Judge Voter Guide blog. The blog credits Craig Huey, a Tea Party-backed Republican and unsuccessful candidate for a U.S. House seat, as coordinator and researcher. “These judges ignore the law in favor of their own liberal, left-wing, anti-family agendas.” After listing items on the “liberal activist agenda” that include such broad ideas as “destroys the separation of powers” and “usurps the right of the people to govern themselves” as well as the narrower “unfairly shifts current city zoning, hurting churches, home owners and businesses,” the author sums up, “Pure and simple, it’s politics from the bench.”
The vitriol is spread across the political spectrum. “For 30 years, conservative commentators have persuaded the public that conservative judges apply the law, whereas liberal judges make up the law,” notes Geoffrey R. Stone in the Huffington Post. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, points out that “Rulings by conservative justices in the past decade make it perfectly clear that they do not ‘apply the law’ in a neutral and detached manner.” Speaking of judges on the national, not the state courts, Stone points to decisions “holding that corporations have the same right of free speech as individuals, that commercial advertising receives robust protection under the First Amendment,” and more. Conservative justices, Stone says, are not neutral. “Rather, fueled by their own political and ideological convictions, they make value judgments, often in an aggressively activist manner.”
In San Diego, the dislike of liberal judges went so far that a campaign was launched by Better Courts Now (BCN) to unseat four superior court judges who were up for election, and replace them with conservative Christian candidates—the first such campaign of its kind. “Candidates are supported by opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage as well as by El Cajon Gun Exchange,” the Christian Post reported. But when the County Bar Association rated three of the four candidates as lacking “qualities of professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament” needed to be fit judges, “BCN accused the association of being partial to the incumbent judges.”
None of the four candidates backed by BCN won election.
What You Need to Know about Judicial Activist or Unqualified Judges (Judgevoterguide.com)
Conservative v. Liberal Judges: Piercing the Myth (by Geoffrey R. Stone, Huffington Post)
Conservative Christians Seek to Replace Calif. Judges (by Jennifer Riley, Christian Post)
Politics Shouldn’t Matter: Judges Interpret the Law
Judges who face challenges like those in San Diego may be forced to “solicit big-money contributions” to hold onto their seats. That could turn “a nonpartisan position into a political plum without regard to the quality and independence of the judges sacrificed in the process.” The quote is from State Appeals Court Justice J. Anthony Kline, in an article on the San Francisco Chronicle website, SFGate. “Partisan races “chill judicial independence,” says Kline, “as politicians in black robes become beholden to special interests.”
At a law conference, former California Chief Justice Ronald M. George lamented that many people view the courts as “another political player . . . to advance a preferred social, economic, or political agenda.” And former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor doesn’t believe judges should have to stand for election at all. “Politically motivated interest groups are attempting to interfere with justice. . . . When so much money goes into influencing the outcome of a judicial election, it is hard to have faith that we are selecting judges who are fair and impartial.”
Susan Gluss, the author of the San Francisco Chronicle article, believes that judges must be independent of politics and partisanship because, “Judges must stand up for unpopular ideas enshrined in our Constitution. Whether it’s protection of unpopular racial, religious and political minorities or criminal defendants, judges shield us from bigotry and discrimination.”
“Same-sex marriage foes often refer to the California Supreme Court’s majority . . . as ‘activist judges,’ but that’s usually just what a lawsuit’s losers call judges who rule against them,” quips Josh Richman in the Political Blotter. After listing the justices and the (mostly) Republicans who appointed them, Richman says, “Activists one and all? Hardly. They’re jurists interpreting state and federal laws and constitutions, as their job descriptions entail.”
Partisan Politics Threaten Judicial Freedom (by Susan Gluss, San Francisco Chronicle)
What the “Yes on 8” Campaign Will and Won’t Say (by Josh Richman, Bay Area News Group)
A bill aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits resulting from the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)—lawsuits filed by serial litigants seeking only a quick cash settlement rather than resolving any true access or usage problems—has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Republican California congressman Dan Lungren. The bill , HR 3356, would force a potential litigant to inform a business owner in writing of their violation of ADA, and allow the business owner 60 days to fix the violation. This bill was sent to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution in November 2011. Although it is a federal bill, its impact on California courts could be significant.
A California bill, AB 1208, would limit the responsibility of the Judicial Council to adopt a budget and allocate trial court funding. The Judicial Council opposes this bill. Proponents say the bill would grant more autonomy to trial courts.
The Judicial Council is partnering with the Administrative Office of the Courts to develop infrastructure initiatives to improve and support court operations. Starting in 1992 and every six years since, the Judicial Council has developed a strategic plan, and every three years, a new operational plan to set priorities and goals for all levels of the judicial branch. A pdf of the current plan for 2006-2012 is available online.
Ronald M. George, (1996-2010) George is remembered as the swing vote in a court split 4-3 over Proposition 22, an initiative that banned same-sex marriage. The court ruled against the proposition, legalizing same-sex marriage by finding that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and invites the scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s constitution.
Malcolm Lucas, (1987-1996)
Rose Bird, (1977-1987) Heavily criticized by conservatives for her views, and by pundits for her independence, Bird was adamantly against capital punishment, reversing all 61 death penalty cases that came before her. This probably cost her in the 1987 general election, when she became the only chief justice in California history to be removed from office by voters.
Donald R. Wright, (1970-1977)
Roger J. Traynor, (1964-1970) Traynor was considered a brilliant man, a gifted teacher and one of the nation’s top scholars in tax law. He spent 24 years as an associate justice before becoming chief justice, and many felt he elevated the court to the nation’s finest. His decisions included People v Cahan, a 1955 case disallowing illegally obtained evidence in trials; Perez v Sharp, a 1948 opinion striking down California’s laws against interracial marriage; Greenman v Yuba Power Products, and other cases from the early 1960s that imposed strict product liability on companies that sold defective products; and a 1966 decision throwing out Proposition 14—an initiative that sought to overturn the Rumford Fair Housing Law by allowing Californians to racially discriminate when selling their homes.
Phil S. Gibson, (1940-1964)
William H. Waste, (1926-1940)
Louis Westcott Myers, (1924-1926) After leaving the Supreme Court, Myers returned to the practice of law in Los Angeles, becoming the Myers in the famed firm O’Melveny & Myers.
Curtis D. Wilbur, (1923-1924) Resigned to become secretary of the U.S. Navy.
Lucien Shaw, (1921-1923)
Frank Angellotti, (1915-1921)
Matt Sullivan, (1914-1915)
William H. Beatty, (1889-1914)
Niles Searls, (1887-1889)
Robert F. Morrison, (1879-1887)
William T. Wallace, (1872-1879)
Royal T. Sprague, (1872) Sprague died within a month of taking office.
Augustus Rhodes, (1870-1872)
Lorenzo Sawyer, (1868-1870)
John Currey, (1866-1868)
Silas Sanderson, (1864-1866)
W. W. Cope, (1863-1864)
Stephen J. Field, (1859-1863) Field left California’s Supreme Court when he was appointed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court by President Lincoln. He was the first Californian to do so.
David S. Terry, (1857-1859) Shortly after Terry was defeated for re-election in 1859 as chief justice he shot and killed an old friend, U.S. Senator David C. Broderick, in a duel. The duel resulted from heated comments over slavery; Terry was for slavery’s expansion into California. Terry was acquitted of murder charges but left the state to serve in the Confederate Army.
Thirty years later, Terry and his wife, Sarah, appeared in a Northern California U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before Stephen J. Field, who had succeeded Terry as chief justice in California before joining the federal bench and eventually becoming a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Another former California chief justice, Lorenzo Sawyer, also sat on this circuit court. The case involved a claim by Sarah that she was entitled to a divorce settlement from a previous “husband,” millionaire William Sharon, who denied they were ever married. Before the final decision was reached, Sarah Terry insulted and attacked Sawyer on a train, and her husband threatened Sawyer.
Back in the courtroom, the court decided against the Terrys. Sarah Terry screamed insults in the courtroom; David Terry struggled with a U.S. marshal, knocked the lawman’s tooth out and tried to draw a knife. Not surprisingly, when the dust settled Justice Field had Terry and his wife jailed for contempt.
Because of David Terry’s loud and repeated threats to kill him, Justice Field was assigned a bodyguard from the U.S. Marshals Service months later, when he returned to California to preside over the next Circuit Court. Sure enough, the Terrys stalked and assaulted Field at a restaurant. David Terry was shot to death by Field’s bodyguard. The bodyguard was arrested, and his case led to an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the right of the president and attorney general to direct U.S. marshals to provide protective services to justices of the Supreme Court.
Hugh C. Murray, (1852-1857)
Henry A. Lyons, (1852)
Serranus Clinton Hastings, (1850-1852) Hastings had been a U.S. Representative and the chief justice of Iowa’s supreme court before coming to California. He was later California’s Attorney General, then founded the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Debate
- Suggested Reforms
- Former Directors
- Comments
- Leave a comment
Judicial Branch
California’s Judicial Branch has several components, including three levels of courts: trial or superior courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. The Judicial Council of California administers the court system. The State Bar is also considered part of the Judicial Branch, as are several branch agencies. All were put in place by either the state constitution or the Legislature to protect our constitutional rights and liberties by resolving disputes, and interpreting and applying the law impartially, consistently, and independently.
California’s first constitution was drafted in six weeks by 48 delegates gathered in Monterey, and Article VI of the document provided for a Supreme Court consisting of a chief justice and two associate justices. These first three justices would be elected by the state Legislature, but thereafter the voting public would elect justices to six-year terms.
The first Supreme Court convened in rented rooms at a former San Francisco Hotel in March 1850, six months before California joined the United States. Most decisions in those early days were not published.
In 1862, the court was expanded to five justices with terms of 10 years, and the type of cases they would handle was also expanded. A state constitutional convention in 1878-1879 changed the judiciary again. Six associate justices and the chief justice would serve 12-year terms, and opinions were now required in writing.
The Supreme Court soon had a backlog of cases. Through the 1880s, commissioners were appointed to help, but this proved inadequate. The Courts of Appeal were created in 1903 by the Legislature, which approved an amendment to the state constitution. Their purpose was to relieve congestion in the courts by dissolving the Supreme Court Commission and creating three District Courts of Appeal—one each in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Each would have three justices, to be appointed by the governor at first, but starting in 1907, the justices would be elected. In each district, justices would draw lots to see what term length they would serve: 4, 8, or 12 years. Their annual salaries were set at a generous $7,000.
In 1926 the Judicial Council was established to improve the administration of justice and to enact rules of court practice and procedure. The State Bar was created the following year. A few years later, the current system of governor-appointed justices who then served but stood for election at the next general election was adopted.
In 1997, the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center was created and made part of the judicial system. The center represents anyone who cannot afford to hire appellate counsel in capital cases. Also in that year, the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act went into operation to provide a stable source of funding for lower courts. Trial court costs were consolidated at the state level and counties make quarterly contributions to fund them.
In 1998, voters approved Proposition 220, which allowed judges in each county to merge their superior and municipal courts. Within three years, all counties had done so, and the trial court level is now composed entirely of superior courts. The ownership of all courts is being transferred to the state from counties as well.
After years of discussing ways to best unify the California courts statewide, the Administrative Office of the Courts began in earnest to develop the California Court Case Management System (CCMS) in 2003. Eight years later, after long delays and hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns, the system remained largely incomplete and at the center of an intense power struggle and raging debate over judicial branch priorities.
A major reorganization of the California Rules of the Court was approved by the council and took effect in 2007. The reorganization involved the reordering and renumbering of more than 1,000 rules and 38 standards of judicial administration.
Fact Sheet (The People’s Legal Center) (pdf)
Phoenix Program: Statewide Human Resources and Financial System Upgrade and Other Services (Judicial Branch home)
California’s court system is the largest in the nation and processes over 10 million cases per year, both criminal and civil actions. The courts are the main component of the judicial branch, and the state has three levels: Superior Courts, Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The mission of all is to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions in a fair, efficient manner, applying the law impartially and consistently.
Trial courts, or Superior Courts, have nearly 450 locations, searchable online by zip code. A Superior Court can be found in each of California’s 58 counties, and many counties host dozens of locations. Contacting these courts is the first step in getting information about a trial case, past and current.
Superior Courts have jurisdiction over criminal cases from traffic matters up to misdemeanors and felonies, as well as civil cases including family law, probate, juvenile and general civil matters. Some trial courts have special departments to handle family law, juvenile and probate cases, as well as domestic violence or nonviolent drug offenses. Judges or juries may decide cases based on testimony and other evidence. The judgment may be appealed. In criminal cases, the punishment for a guilty verdict can range from fines or community service to imprisonment and death. (All death sentences are automatically referred to the state Supreme Court for review.) In civil cases the court can enforce its decision with wage garnishments or liens. Superior Courts have an appellate division where small claims and limited civil cases involving less than $25,000 are decided.
The Legislature decides the number of judges in each Superior Court; currently about 2,175 serve throughout the state. Judges are appointed by the governor when a vacancy occurs. They serve six-year terms and are elected by county in general elections.
The courts offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the form of arbitration or mediation by a neutral party. Online help is also available in English, Spanish, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese to help Californians navigate the legal system, in areas such as small claims, divorce, family law, harassment, eviction, name changes, seniors & conservatorship, and traffic issues.
The state’s Courts of Appeal are divided into six geographic districts, and three districts have multiple divisions. Courts of Appeal have appellate jurisdiction over cases originating in the state’s Superior Courts, meaning that anyone with a judgment from a trial or proceeding can ask this court to review that judgment. The appeals court does not retry these cases; they review them to ensure that the law was applied correctly and fairly. In addition, the Courts of Appeal have original jurisdiction over cases of habeas corpus (challenging the confinement of someone), mandamus (forcing an official duty), prohibition (restraining action), certiorari (review of a judicial action), and challenges to decisions of certain state boards: the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Public Employment Relations Board, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and some decisions of the Public Utilities Commission.
Each case is decided by a panel of three judges: one presiding justice and two associate justices. Of the judgments rendered, about 9% are certified for publication, usually because they clarify a legal point.
Justices of the Courts of Appeal are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. At the end of their terms and in gubernatorial elections, the justices must also be approved by the voters. Currently, 105 justices serve the appellate court system.
The state Supreme Court holds the highest authority in the system, issuing more than 100 opinions each year on legal questions. The Supreme Court must review all cases that result in a death penalty. According to the state constitution, cases decided by the state’s Courts of Appeal may be reviewed at the Supreme Court’s discretion, either in whole or to decide an important legal question and maintain uniformity in the law. Cases from the appellate courts are petitioned for review, and the justices decide to accept or decline the case at their weekly conferences. Less than 5% are accepted. Supreme Court case information can be found online, and questions about the petition process are answered at the Practices & Procedures page.
All Supreme Court opinions are available at the court’s website and are published in print. The daily proceedings of the court, including calendars, notices, filings, weekly summaries and minutes are updated throughout the day. Docket information on every case before the court is updated hourly.
The chief justice and six associate justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for 12-year terms by the governor after review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation. Appointees are then confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. At the end of their 12-year terms, justices may also stand for election and continue to serve.
The Judicial Council of California is the administrative office of the court system. The Judicial Council has 21 voting members and six advisory members and is chaired by the state’s chief justice. Their Administrative Office provides policy support, handling budgets, fiscal services, technology, education, human resources, research and much more.
Branch agencies of the Judicial Branch include the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, which exists to represent anyone who can’t afford to hire appellate counsel in capital cases; the Commission on Judicial Performance, charged with investigating judicial misconduct or incapacity and imposing discipline or making recommendations; and the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which approves the governor’s appointments to higher courts, or not.
Finally the State Bar of California is also considered part of the Judicial Branch, although it is a public corporation. The State Bar examines all candidates who want to practice law, and all attorneys licensed in California must join the State Bar. It formulates and enforces rules of professional conduct.
California Judicial Branch (Judicial Branch website)
Fact Sheet, California Judicial Branch (pdf)
About California Courts (Judicial Branch website)
Visitors’ Guide to the California Superior Courts (pdf)
Of the $3.11 billion allocated to California’s judicial system, the trial courts get $2.82 billion through the consolidation of funding set up by the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act. This supports court employee pay and benefits, court-appointed advocates and counsel, interpreters, security, jury services, several projects and programs, as well as statewide administration and technology infrastructure. The Courts of Appeal get $208.39 million, the Supreme Court gets $46.22 million, the Judicial Council gets $139.49 million, and $14.7 million goes to the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. A $350 million cut, imposed in 2011, has not yet been allocated among these branches.
The state’s general fund supplies $1.27 billion, and the Trial Court Trust Fund provides $1.47 billion. Other trust funds, construction funds, and various sources supply the balance.
3-Year Budget (pdf)
Budget Cuts in the Courts
It’s no secret that the state of California faces a fiscal crises and many areas of government are enduring slashes in their budgets. But cuts to the judiciary “put public safety on the chopping block,” according to the San Francisco Examiner. In July 2011, the paper noted that 41% San Francisco’s Superior Court staff might be laid off, and 40% of courtrooms could close within months due to the pending and permanent $350 million cut that the judicial branch faces.
“Courts will prioritize criminal cases and urgent civil matters such as restraining orders and evictions, but hearing could still take months. As for lower priority cases, they are out of luck,” the alarming editorial reads. Family law cases “will take between eight and 18 months longer to settle after 200 court clerks, court reporters, research attorneys and management employees are no longer on the job and 25 courtrooms have been closed, according to Michael Yuen, the Superior Court’s chief executive officer.”
The paper quotes the Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye: “Courts are not a luxury. . . . They are the heart of our democracy. These cuts threaten access to justice for all.”
In 2011-2012, California targeted the court system and its $3.5 billion budget for $350 million in operational cuts and $310 million in transfers from its construction fund. Allocations from the state’s General Fund to the courts has declined 30% since 2009. These reductions come on top of $652 million in cuts during the previous four years. The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office suggested that the court could have saved some money by privatizing some its services such as contracting out interpreting services, requiring competitive bidding for court security and substituting electronic equipment for court reporters.
An op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times also reprinted the quote from the chief justice, and points to a nationwide trend. “Strapped for cash, courts have reduced hours of operation, fired staff, frozen salaries and hiring, increased filing fees, diverted resources from civil trials—which in some cases suspended jury trials—and, in the worst cases, closed courts entirely.”
The San Francisco editorial pointed out that in that city, “At a time when the numbers of homicides, shooting victims, auto thefts, auto burglaries and domestic violence incidents have increased by double digits . . . the City’s judicial system is about to be gutted.”
The Los Angeles Times writers, Adam Skaggs and Maria da Silva, also bemoaned the timing of the cuts: “These cuts are coming at precisely the time when courts desperately need more, not fewer, resources. State courts confront elevated numbers of foreclosure filings, consumer debt proceedings and domestic violence cases—all of which rise in tough economic times.”
“Unlike other government agencies, courts cannot simply cut some services; they have a constitutional duty to resolve criminal and civil cases.” Skaggs and da Silva point to an economic impact study that predicts that from 2010 to 2013, “the county [Los Angeles] and state would suffer estimated losses of more than $30 billion from a combination of lost jobs, lost payroll taxes from laid-off court and legal service personnel, a decline in legal services revenues and uncertainty among litigants. The study said cuts aimed at short-term saving will have negative and ‘long-term structural consequences for the Los Angeles and California economies.”
California Budget Impact on Courts Too Mighty to Fathom (by Eric Winkler, One Legal)
State Cuts Threaten to Blunt Justice System (San Francisco Examiner editorial)
America’s Judiciary: Courting Disaster (by Adam Skaggs and Maria da Silva of the Brennan Center for Justice, Los Angeles Times op-ed)
Judicial Branch Budget Cuts (California Courts)
A Billion-Dollar Boondoggle?
The Judicial Council began talking about a statewide computer system in 1998 after voters approved Proposition 220 and began the process of unifying California’s Municipal and Superior Courts. A year earlier, the Legislature had established the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and put in place a funding scheme that functioned at the state, not local, level.
By 2003, the
The deadline was 2009 and the price tag was $260 million. As of 2012, it was a mess. More than 200 representatives from 29 countries have worked on the project and when it is completed in 2016 it will have cost $1.9 billion.
The California State Auditor said the project was poorly planned from the outset. His 2011 report said the
And if it is finally, successfully deployed, the auditor said, it probably won’t be around for long. “The useful life of CCMS may be very short after it begins to achieve a positive return on investment in fiscal year 2019-20. The technology will be almost 10 years old when fully deployed. Our IT expert believes there is significant risk that the technology could be outdated shortly after its full deployment in fiscal year 2016-17.”
But, as Justice Terence Bruiniers, a state appellate court judge, pointed out, not everything in the auditor’s report was negative. “I think it’s important to emphasize that the audit does not recommend ending the project,” he wrote.
While substantial questions have been raised about the project’s future, scarce dollars during a crushing budget deficit are being diverted from day-to-day running of the courts to develop the project. Courthouses are closing, court date delays are growing longer, staff is being let go, lines are lengthening and fears have arisen about the collapse of the judicial system in parts of the state.
Superior Courts in Los Angeles and Sacramento have expressed an unwillingness to implement the system in its current form if, or when, it is up and running.
In a recent survey of state judges circulated by Justice Arthur Scotland, Sacramento Judge Kevin McCormick ripped the system that started out with a price tag of $260 million and which, if some worst-case scenarios come true, could go as high as $3 billion. “Not [a] single dollar should be spent on this system until it is certain the expenditures will not cause court closures, reduced hours or layoffs of courtroom staff. Expending any money on a computer system with such a flawed financial history is unjustified.”
Audit: State Courts Computer System Massively Over Budget (by Ryan Gabrielson, California Watch)
Computer Mess Jeopardizes Court's Political Clout (by Paul Ellis, Associated Press)
California Court Case Management System (CCMS) (Judicial Branch website)
Consultant for Court IT System Is Facing Lawsuits in California Over Software Systems (by Bill Girdner and David Tartre, Courthouse News Service)
Judge Pines v. AOC Finance (Courthouse News Service)
Auditor Review of CCMS (State Auditor) (pdf)
Judge Bangs on Bureaucrats' Door (by Bill Girdner, Courthouse News Service)
Review of the California Court Case Management System (Office of the State Chief Information Officer) (pdf)
Audit Finds California Courts' Computer Project Far Over Budget and Urges Suspension (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)
California A Judicial Hellhole?
A hellhole? Who would call the state that?
The Americans for Tort Reform Association (ATRA) would. ATRA publishes “Judicial Hellholes,” an annual report ranking states and counties according to their “high degree of lawsuit abuse, thanks to unfair judges, court rules, and underlying liability laws.” In their report released in December 2011, ATRA rank California 2nd only to the Philadelphia area in hellholishness.
“Small business-destroying lawsuits filed by professional plaintiffs have spread throughout California,” the executive summary of Judicial Hellholes reads. “These individuals have filed thousands of extortionate claims against popular family-owned restaurants, book stores and salons, demanding thousands of dollars to settle allegations of technical violations of disabled access standards, and California’s courts have enabled the extortion. Recent court decisions demonstrate that California remains friendly to consumer lawsuits (even after voters attempted to rein in abuse), class actions, and high awards.”
Serial litigants are a problem in many places, but the report maintains that California “clearly illustrates the direct impact of excessive litigation on job creation and the ability of businesses to survive and thrive.” ATRA also blames the state’s Legislature in creating this climate because it “rarely acts to limit lawsuit abuse.”
Tort reform is a popular conservative hobby horse. As Los Angeles Times writer Michael Hiltzik explained: “The public's on board because it's easy to hate lawyers. Doctors and hospitals love it because they hate to get sued. Insurance companies love it because the less money they pay out to plaintiffs, the more they get to keep. Republicans love it because trial lawyers give three-quarters of their political donations to Democrats. And Democrats pay it lip service because they're afraid to look like lawyer lovers.”
Tort reform often takes the form of limiting class-action lawsuits, capping damage awards, eliminating or reducing punitive awards, and making it more difficult to gain access to the courts. A tort is a civil harm.
Although California is the state tort reform supporters love to hate, it has been edging closer to the national norm through recent court decisions and legislation. In August 2011, the state Supreme Court ruled in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions limited personal injury plaintiffs from receiving full recovery of their medical costs if their insurance company settled for a smaller, negotiated amount. In effect, an uninsured person can sue and win a lot more money that an insured person who pays regular insurance premiums. The decision overturned a century-old standard known as “the collateral source rule” that a plaintiff receive the reasonable value of medical treatment.
The next month, the 5th District Court of Appeal ruled in Stennett v. Tam that California’s landmark 1975 law capping recovery of non-economic damages at $250,000 was proper justification for reducing a $6 million court award by 96% in a wrongful death suit filed by the wife of a man who died of alleged negligence in a hospital. The state Supreme Court declined to review the case, which challenged the constitutionality of Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). MICRA is considered a national model in the area of medical tort reform.
Alleged lax attention to tort reform by the Legislature and courts in California is not the only reason that California wound up in ATRA’s number 2 position. Joseph Perkins, in a CalWatchdog article, gave another reason found in ATRA’s report: “California has one of the country’s most easily exploited consumer protection laws . . . law firms from around the country descend on the Golden State to file specious class action suits against deep pocket targets.”
An example used by ATRA and CalWatchdog is a 2011 suit brought against Taco Bell, an Irvine, CA based company, by an Alabama law firm “on behalf of every person in the United States who purchased a beef taco from Taco Bell.” The claim? The beef wasn’t all beef. “Beasley Allen [the law firm] no doubt expected Taco Bell to reach some sort of out of court settlement—for which the chain almost certainly was insured—rather than fight the law firm’s frivolous class action.”
“But Taco Bell not only refused to settle, it also spent as much as $4 million on an advertising campaign assuring its customers that its taco filling consists of ‘88 percent premium ground beef and 12 percent signature recipe.’ ” CalWatchdog continued. “Taco Bell’s aggressive counterattack persuaded Beasley Allen to withdraw its lawsuit. Unfortunately, the chain’s response to the firm’s shakedown suit was more the exception than the rule for corporate defendants in California.”
“Lawsuit abuse imposes a hidden tax on each and everyone in the way of slower economic growth, fewer jobs created, and higher prices for consumer goods,” Perkins summed up. “That’s why California desperately needs legal reform. The Golden State could hardly afford tort-related costs during economic boom times. And it absolutely cannot afford those costs during these hard economic times.”
Not everyone agrees that tort reform equals cost control. A 2007 report on medical tort reform by the non-profit organization Public Citizen show that the number and value of malpractice payments have been flat since 1991 and declined since 2001; patients do not win big jury awards for frivolous claims; and patient safety is a real crisis. A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) identified what may be a better explanation for rising costs, at least in the medical profession. Malpractice insurance premiums jumped 15% per year from 1986 to 2002, the study found, while the average damage award rose only 8% annually. The CBO concluded that the rise in insurance rates was directly related to losses the insurance companies suffered in their investments, not in payouts for lawsuits.
Judicial Hellholes 2011-2012 (ATR Foundation)
California Is a Judicial Hellhole (by Joseph Perkins, CalWatchdog)
Tort Reform Is the Healthcare Debate's Frivolous Sideshow (by Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times)
CA Supreme Court Comes Down in Favor of Big Insurance, Against Consumers (by J.G. Preston, California Progress Report)
Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions Inc.—Full Opinion
Stinnett v. Tam (Leagle.com)
Meme-Busting: Tort Reform = Cost Control (by Aaron Carroll, Washington Post)
The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax (Public Citizen) (pdf)
The Return of the Republican Malpractice Frauds (Daily Kos)
Who Should Run the Courts?
It seemed like a good idea at the time. In 1997, California had 58 separate county trial courts, each funded at the local level. Services were as uneven between them as their funding bases. And so, arguably, was the standard of justice. Unifying the courts in a single system would save money and serve justice as well.
But is that true? The state beefed up the authority of the Judicial Council and created an elaborate bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts (
Fourteen years later, judges in the local courts were in open conflict with the
Decentralize the State Court System
On March 15, 2011, Judge Maryanne G. Gillard, put it succinctly on behalf of the Association of California Judges which she heads: “The AOC is simply out of control. Its excesses have harmed the judiciary's reputation immeasurably,” Gillard wrote in the Daily Journal, a legal publication.
Gillard says the Alliance is not out to dismantle statewide rules that ensure the fair and consistent administration of justice. They don’t want to tamper with the Judicial Council’s constitutional rule making authority. But they want control of the judiciary returned to judges and believe that can be accomplished with relatively simple legislation that outlines the authority of trial judges over budgeting and policy matters.
Critics of the
While the Information Services Division announces new hires daily to work on its failed billion-dollar Court Case Management System, critical courtroom staff are being laid off. Courthouses are being closed and hours curtailed even as new building are being built. Backlogs of cases are piling up and hours are spent in courthouse lines to accomplish simple legal tasks.
While the
The Centralized Court System Works
Supporters of centralized control of the California judiciary say the
Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County agrees. “When times are good you don't hear a lot of criticism,” he said during a panel discussion of trial judges in September 2011. “When times are bad the criticism is brought to the fore.”
The
The centralizing process was begun in the late ‘90s by Chief Justice Ronald M. George with the goal of having a uniformity of rules in the courts and a fair, stable statewide funding base for the courts. In the process, two parallel court systems with duplicative activities and 85 separate trial courts were brought under central control. Many think it was a good idea then, and now.
Supporters of the current system, like Appellate Justice Douglas Miller, argue that the council and its administrative office are in a constant state of reform and that there is no need for more trial judge autonomy to affect change. “We have a new chief justice, new members of the judicial council and changes at the
The lightening rod for critics of the Judicial Council and the
Untold benefits are possible when the 58 trial courts and their 70 plus computer systems can talk to each other, sharing vital information and streamlining court processes. Judges and law enforcement will be able to have real-time access to each other.
Who Really Runs the Judicial Branch? (by Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard, director of the Alliance of California Judges, published in the Daily Journal)
California Court Administrators Clash With Judges Over Cuts (by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times)
Court News Roundup and Open Thread (
Order in the Courts? How About in the Judicial Council and the AOC? (Judicial Council Watcher)
31 Days – The Chief Justice & Judicial Council’s Crafty, Predictable Ploy (Judicial Council Watcher)
Trial Judges Question Direction of Courts (by Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service)
Should Judges Be Branded Liberal or Conservative?
California is one of 39 states that elect judges. Should it matter whether a judge’s politics and values are liberal or conservative? Republican or Democrat?
Partisanship Matters: California Judges Push Their Own Agenda
“Many judges sitting on California courts . . . are political opportunists who have a political agenda,” says the home page of the Judge Voter Guide blog. The blog credits Craig Huey, a Tea Party-backed Republican and unsuccessful candidate for a U.S. House seat, as coordinator and researcher. “These judges ignore the law in favor of their own liberal, left-wing, anti-family agendas.” After listing items on the “liberal activist agenda” that include such broad ideas as “destroys the separation of powers” and “usurps the right of the people to govern themselves” as well as the narrower “unfairly shifts current city zoning, hurting churches, home owners and businesses,” the author sums up, “Pure and simple, it’s politics from the bench.”
The vitriol is spread across the political spectrum. “For 30 years, conservative commentators have persuaded the public that conservative judges apply the law, whereas liberal judges make up the law,” notes Geoffrey R. Stone in the Huffington Post. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, points out that “Rulings by conservative justices in the past decade make it perfectly clear that they do not ‘apply the law’ in a neutral and detached manner.” Speaking of judges on the national, not the state courts, Stone points to decisions “holding that corporations have the same right of free speech as individuals, that commercial advertising receives robust protection under the First Amendment,” and more. Conservative justices, Stone says, are not neutral. “Rather, fueled by their own political and ideological convictions, they make value judgments, often in an aggressively activist manner.”
In San Diego, the dislike of liberal judges went so far that a campaign was launched by Better Courts Now (BCN) to unseat four superior court judges who were up for election, and replace them with conservative Christian candidates—the first such campaign of its kind. “Candidates are supported by opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage as well as by El Cajon Gun Exchange,” the Christian Post reported. But when the County Bar Association rated three of the four candidates as lacking “qualities of professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament” needed to be fit judges, “BCN accused the association of being partial to the incumbent judges.”
None of the four candidates backed by BCN won election.
What You Need to Know about Judicial Activist or Unqualified Judges (Judgevoterguide.com)
Conservative v. Liberal Judges: Piercing the Myth (by Geoffrey R. Stone, Huffington Post)
Conservative Christians Seek to Replace Calif. Judges (by Jennifer Riley, Christian Post)
Politics Shouldn’t Matter: Judges Interpret the Law
Judges who face challenges like those in San Diego may be forced to “solicit big-money contributions” to hold onto their seats. That could turn “a nonpartisan position into a political plum without regard to the quality and independence of the judges sacrificed in the process.” The quote is from State Appeals Court Justice J. Anthony Kline, in an article on the San Francisco Chronicle website, SFGate. “Partisan races “chill judicial independence,” says Kline, “as politicians in black robes become beholden to special interests.”
At a law conference, former California Chief Justice Ronald M. George lamented that many people view the courts as “another political player . . . to advance a preferred social, economic, or political agenda.” And former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor doesn’t believe judges should have to stand for election at all. “Politically motivated interest groups are attempting to interfere with justice. . . . When so much money goes into influencing the outcome of a judicial election, it is hard to have faith that we are selecting judges who are fair and impartial.”
Susan Gluss, the author of the San Francisco Chronicle article, believes that judges must be independent of politics and partisanship because, “Judges must stand up for unpopular ideas enshrined in our Constitution. Whether it’s protection of unpopular racial, religious and political minorities or criminal defendants, judges shield us from bigotry and discrimination.”
“Same-sex marriage foes often refer to the California Supreme Court’s majority . . . as ‘activist judges,’ but that’s usually just what a lawsuit’s losers call judges who rule against them,” quips Josh Richman in the Political Blotter. After listing the justices and the (mostly) Republicans who appointed them, Richman says, “Activists one and all? Hardly. They’re jurists interpreting state and federal laws and constitutions, as their job descriptions entail.”
Partisan Politics Threaten Judicial Freedom (by Susan Gluss, San Francisco Chronicle)
What the “Yes on 8” Campaign Will and Won’t Say (by Josh Richman, Bay Area News Group)
A bill aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits resulting from the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)—lawsuits filed by serial litigants seeking only a quick cash settlement rather than resolving any true access or usage problems—has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Republican California congressman Dan Lungren. The bill , HR 3356, would force a potential litigant to inform a business owner in writing of their violation of ADA, and allow the business owner 60 days to fix the violation. This bill was sent to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution in November 2011. Although it is a federal bill, its impact on California courts could be significant.
A California bill, AB 1208, would limit the responsibility of the Judicial Council to adopt a budget and allocate trial court funding. The Judicial Council opposes this bill. Proponents say the bill would grant more autonomy to trial courts.
The Judicial Council is partnering with the Administrative Office of the Courts to develop infrastructure initiatives to improve and support court operations. Starting in 1992 and every six years since, the Judicial Council has developed a strategic plan, and every three years, a new operational plan to set priorities and goals for all levels of the judicial branch. A pdf of the current plan for 2006-2012 is available online.
Ronald M. George, (1996-2010) George is remembered as the swing vote in a court split 4-3 over Proposition 22, an initiative that banned same-sex marriage. The court ruled against the proposition, legalizing same-sex marriage by finding that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and invites the scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s constitution.
Malcolm Lucas, (1987-1996)
Rose Bird, (1977-1987) Heavily criticized by conservatives for her views, and by pundits for her independence, Bird was adamantly against capital punishment, reversing all 61 death penalty cases that came before her. This probably cost her in the 1987 general election, when she became the only chief justice in California history to be removed from office by voters.
Donald R. Wright, (1970-1977)
Roger J. Traynor, (1964-1970) Traynor was considered a brilliant man, a gifted teacher and one of the nation’s top scholars in tax law. He spent 24 years as an associate justice before becoming chief justice, and many felt he elevated the court to the nation’s finest. His decisions included People v Cahan, a 1955 case disallowing illegally obtained evidence in trials; Perez v Sharp, a 1948 opinion striking down California’s laws against interracial marriage; Greenman v Yuba Power Products, and other cases from the early 1960s that imposed strict product liability on companies that sold defective products; and a 1966 decision throwing out Proposition 14—an initiative that sought to overturn the Rumford Fair Housing Law by allowing Californians to racially discriminate when selling their homes.
Phil S. Gibson, (1940-1964)
William H. Waste, (1926-1940)
Louis Westcott Myers, (1924-1926) After leaving the Supreme Court, Myers returned to the practice of law in Los Angeles, becoming the Myers in the famed firm O’Melveny & Myers.
Curtis D. Wilbur, (1923-1924) Resigned to become secretary of the U.S. Navy.
Lucien Shaw, (1921-1923)
Frank Angellotti, (1915-1921)
Matt Sullivan, (1914-1915)
William H. Beatty, (1889-1914)
Niles Searls, (1887-1889)
Robert F. Morrison, (1879-1887)
William T. Wallace, (1872-1879)
Royal T. Sprague, (1872) Sprague died within a month of taking office.
Augustus Rhodes, (1870-1872)
Lorenzo Sawyer, (1868-1870)
John Currey, (1866-1868)
Silas Sanderson, (1864-1866)
W. W. Cope, (1863-1864)
Stephen J. Field, (1859-1863) Field left California’s Supreme Court when he was appointed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court by President Lincoln. He was the first Californian to do so.
David S. Terry, (1857-1859) Shortly after Terry was defeated for re-election in 1859 as chief justice he shot and killed an old friend, U.S. Senator David C. Broderick, in a duel. The duel resulted from heated comments over slavery; Terry was for slavery’s expansion into California. Terry was acquitted of murder charges but left the state to serve in the Confederate Army.
Thirty years later, Terry and his wife, Sarah, appeared in a Northern California U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before Stephen J. Field, who had succeeded Terry as chief justice in California before joining the federal bench and eventually becoming a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Another former California chief justice, Lorenzo Sawyer, also sat on this circuit court. The case involved a claim by Sarah that she was entitled to a divorce settlement from a previous “husband,” millionaire William Sharon, who denied they were ever married. Before the final decision was reached, Sarah Terry insulted and attacked Sawyer on a train, and her husband threatened Sawyer.
Back in the courtroom, the court decided against the Terrys. Sarah Terry screamed insults in the courtroom; David Terry struggled with a U.S. marshal, knocked the lawman’s tooth out and tried to draw a knife. Not surprisingly, when the dust settled Justice Field had Terry and his wife jailed for contempt.
Because of David Terry’s loud and repeated threats to kill him, Justice Field was assigned a bodyguard from the U.S. Marshals Service months later, when he returned to California to preside over the next Circuit Court. Sure enough, the Terrys stalked and assaulted Field at a restaurant. David Terry was shot to death by Field’s bodyguard. The bodyguard was arrested, and his case led to an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the right of the president and attorney general to direct U.S. marshals to provide protective services to justices of the Supreme Court.
Hugh C. Murray, (1852-1857)
Henry A. Lyons, (1852)
Serranus Clinton Hastings, (1850-1852) Hastings had been a U.S. Representative and the chief justice of Iowa’s supreme court before coming to California. He was later California’s Attorney General, then founded the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.