California Proposition 220 (1998)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
California Proposition 220, also called the Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation Amendment, was on the June 2, 2008 statewide primary ballot in California, as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment proposing amendments to Article I and Article VI of the California Constitution. It was approved.
Proposition 220 permitted the superior and municipal courts in a county to consolidate their operations if a majority of the superior court and municipal court judges in the county agreed to the consolidation. Under the terms of the proposition, if a consolidation was agreed to, the county's municipal courts would be abolished and all municipal court judges and employees would become superior court judges and employees.
Proposition 200 made a number of other related changes and what are known as "conforming changes" to the constitution; these had to do with the minimum qualifications of, and election of, judges in consolidated courts. Proposition 200 also made:
- Related and conforming changes to the membership of the Commission on Judicial Performance, which handles complaints against judges.
- Related, conforming, and other minor changes to the membership and terms of the California Judicial Council, which oversees and administers the state's courts.
Election results
| California Proposition 220 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage | ||||
 Yes
| 64.5% | |||
| No | 35.5% | |||
| Total votes | 100% | |||
Ballot language
The language that appeared on the ballot:
Trial court consolidation
This proposition, a constitutional amendment, permits superior and municipal courts within a county to consolidate their operations if approved by a majority of the superior court judges and a majority of municipal court judges in the county. If the judges approve consolidation of the courts, the municipal courts of the county would be abolished and all municipal court judges and employees would become superior court judges and employees.
A consolidated superior court would have jurisdiction in all matters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of either the superior or municipal courts. A consolidated superior court would have an appellate division to handle misdemeanors and infractions and most civil lawsuits involving disputes of $25,000 or less that are currently appealed from a municipal court to a superior court. The Legislature can change these amounts thereby changing the appeal jurisdiction.
Other changes
The proposition makes a number of other related and conforming changes to the Constitution with respect to the minimum qualifications and election of judges in consolidated courts. In addition, the measure makes: (1) related and conforming changes to the membership of the Commission on Judicial Performance, which handles complaints against judges; and (2) related, conforming, and other minor changes to the membership and terms of the California Judicial Council, which oversees and administers the state's courts.
Fiscal effect
The fiscal impact of this measure on the state is unknown and would ultimately depend on the number of superior and municipal courts that choose to consolidate. To the extent that most courts choose to consolidate, however, this measure would likely result in net savings to the state ranging in the millions to the tens of millions of dollars annually in the long term. The state could save money from greater efficiency and flexibility in the assignment of trial court judges, reductions in the need to create new judgeships in the future to handle increasing workload, improved management of court records, and reductions in general court administrative costs. At the same time, however, courts that choose to consolidate would result in additional state costs from increasing the salaries and benefits of municipal court judges and employees to the levels of superior court judges and employees. These additional costs would partially offset the savings.
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide to Proposition 220
- Proposition 220 on Smart Voter
- League of Women Voters analysis of pros/cons of Prop 220
- June 2, 1998 California statewide elections results (PDF)
