LWV logo November 2002 LWVC logo
HOME   |   SEARCH   |  CONTACT US   |   SITE MAP              
Home > Elections > November 2002 > In Depth > Prop 48
PROPOSITION 48


Smart Voter
Your Ballot
On Propositions

Ballot Measure Analysis
Easy Reading Voter Guide
Pros & Cons
Prop 46 Prop 50
Prop 47 Prop 51
Prop 48 Prop 52
Prop 49
In Depth
Prop 46
Prop 47
Prop 48
Prop 49
Prop 50
Prop 51
Prop 52


About Ballot Measures
Background
How to Evaluate
State Bond Debt
State Bond Debt: Detail
The Initiative Process

Other
Mock Election
Register to Vote

COURT CONSOLIDATION
Legislative Constitutional Amendment

THE QUESTION

Should the California Constitution be amended to delete references to the municipal courts?

PROVISIONS

This measure amends the California Constitution to remove references to municipal courts. Municipal courts no longer exist in California.

  • Deletes from the Constitution the provisions providing for municipal courts in each county and vesting judicial powers of the state in municipal courts
  • Makes certain conforming and related changes in the Constitution to reflect the consolidation
  • Provides for automatic repeal on January 1, 2007 of the Constitutional provision governing the transition process to a unified superior court

BACKGROUND

In 1998, California voters approved Proposition 220, which permitted superior and municipal courts, known as "trial courts," within a county to consolidate their operations if approved by a majority vote of the superior court judges and municipal court judges in the county. Under consolidation, the superior court assumes jurisdiction over all matters handled previously by superior and municipal courts. Municipal court judges become superior court judges and the municipal courts are abolished.

Since the passage of Proposition 220, all 58 California counties have voted to consolidate their trial court operations. At the request of the California Legislature, the California Law Revision Commission has made recommendations on repealing statutes that are obsolete because of trial court reforms, including those resulting from court consolidation.

FISCAL EFFECT

This measure would not result in additional costs to state or local government.

IMPACT OF YES OR NO VOTE

A YES vote authorizes deletion of references to municipal courts from the California Constitution, along with conforming and related changes.

A NO vote means that the present situation, in which provisions relating to municipal courts remain in the California Constitution, will continue.

SUPPORTERS SAY

  • This change is a non-controversial update of the California Constitution. It passed each house of the Legislature unanimously.
  • The provisions in the California Constitution that deal with municipal courts are obsolete and need to be removed.
  • Eliminating municipal courts in every county resulted in estimated savings of $23,000,000 a year for the taxpayers.
  • Opponents of this measure do not frame their arguments around the issue that is before the voters. They argue against Proposition 220, which was decided by the voters four years ago.

OPPONENTS SAY

  • Deleting provision for municipal courts from the California Constitution precludes re-establishment of municipal courts in any of California's 58 counties.
  • Superior court judges earn higher salaries than municipal court judges do. Counties might want to re-establish a municipal court to save money.
  • The two-tier trial court system allowed for "checks and balances." When civil and criminal decisions are appealed, they are appealed to judges who are almost always in the same superior court as the judge whose decision is being challenged.
  • Under consolidation, the local judiciary has become more insular. All local judges are elected on a countywide basis and are seldom challenged.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION

Official ballot arguments in support are signed by Assemblymember Howard Wayne, 78th District; David Huebner, Chair, California Law Revision Commission.

Official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Gary B. Wesley, Co-Chair, Voter Information Alliance (VIA); Melvin L. Emerich, Co-Chair, Voter Information Alliance (VIA)

For more information:

Supporters

California Law Revision Commission, (650) 494-1335, www.clrc.ca.gov

Opponents

Voter Information Alliance, (408) 882-5070, www.VoterInformationAlliance.org

 


You may link to any individual proposition page. You may print and circulate this copyrighted material if you use it in its entirety (the introductory page plus the seven proposition pages) and give credit to the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.

Send comments and suggestions concerning the content of this page to lwvcprocon@hotmail.com.
Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to lwvc@vcwatts.org

Feedback Home Search the Site Contact Us Outline of Site

The League is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization of women and men
which never supports or opposes candidates or political parties.

© Copyright. League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. All rights reserved.
926 J Street, Suite 515; Sacramento, CA 95814.     916-442-7215     lwvc@lwvc.org