Allocation of vacant judgeships.
Summary
Existing law specifies the number of judges for the superior court of each county. Existing law allocates additional judgeships to the various counties in accordance with uniform standards for factually determining additional judicial need in each county, as updated and approved by the Judicial Council, pursuant to the Update of Judicial Needs Study, based on specified criteria, including, among others, workload standards that represent the average amount of time of bench and nonbench work required to resolve each case type. This bill would require the allocation of up to 5 vacant judgeships, as defined, from superior courts with more authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need to superior courts with fewer authorized judgeships than their assessed judicial need. The bill would require the allocation to be in accordance with a methodology approved by the Judicial Council, as specified, and would require the determination of a superior court's assessed judicial need to be in accordance with the above uniform standards and be based on the criteria described above. The bill would require the Judicial Council, if a vacant judgeship is eligible for allocation to another superior court, to promptly notify the applicable courts, the Legislature, and the Governor that the judgeship shall be allocated to another court. This bill would also make a statement of legislative intent regarding the authority of the Legislature, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of California.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2016
Committee Review
Aug 2016
Assembly Passage
May 2016
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 18, 2016
Last action Aug 11, 2016
Floor votes · Assembly May 5, 2016
How they voted
74–1
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 78
May 5, 2016
D
Democratic52
98% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Yea
R
Republican25
88% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
21
Key actions
5
Committee
11
Amendments
2
Aug 11, 2016
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 1, 2016
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jun 29, 2016
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
May 26, 2016
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 19, 2016
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
May 18, 2016
Committee
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
upper
May 12, 2016
Committee
Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
upper
May 5, 2016
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (74-1-3)
assembly
Apr 13, 2016
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 20. Noes 0.) (April 13).
lower
Apr 5, 2016
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 4, 2016
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 31, 2016
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (March 29).
lower
Mar 3, 2016
Committee
Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
lower
Feb 19, 2016
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Jay Obernolte
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2341
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2341. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline