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

THE SITUATION

Proposition 220, which passed in 1998, permitted superior and municipal courts within a county to consolidate their operations if approved by a majority of the superior court judges and municipal court judges in the county. Since the passage of Proposition 220, all 58 California counties have voted to consolidate their court operations. At the request of the California Legislature, the California Law Revision Commission has made recommendations on repealing statutes that are obsolete including those resulting from court consolidation.

THE PROPOSAL

Now that municipal courts no longer exist in California, this measure amends the California Constitution to remove references to municipal courts. It also provides for automatic repeal on January 1, 2007 of the Constitutional provision governing the transition process to a unified superior court.

FISCAL EFFECT

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

A YES VOTE means that references in the California Constitution to municipal courts will be deleted, along with some related changes.

A NO VOTE means that provisions in the California Constitution relating to municipal courts will remain.

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.

• 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 are paid more than municipal court judges. 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.

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

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