Courts. Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
	Argument against Proposition 220

Masquerading as a "reform" of California's trial courts, Proposition 220 is in reality a hoax, a politician's deal to give municipal court judges, already among the highest paid in the nation, an annual pay raise of $9,320, increasing their annual salary from $98,070 to $107,390. In return for this generosity, the municipal court, the "people's court", the court closest to the people, will be abolished.

This can be done in any county by a majority vote of their municipal and superior court judges to unify the trial courts. That will automatically abolish the municipal court and elevate every municipal court judge in the county to the superior court without the experience and review for competence now required for superior court judges. If this is done in all counties more than six million dollars will be added to judicial budgets just so 670 municipal court judges can call themselves superior and collect a bigger paycheck.

That's not all. Municipal court judges who retire from a unified court, including judges who are now retired, will receive an increased retirement check of as much as $6213 per year from the already underfunded Judges' Retirement Fund.

When the Legislature considered this proposal, it was opposed by the State Department of Finance on the ground that trial court "unification may lower the standards of service and would raise costs to the extent judges are paid at superior court rates to perform municipal court work."

Californians demand more accountability from their judges. This measure offers less. Under existing law, superior court judges review the decisions of municipal court judges. Under this proposal superior court judges will be assigned to sit on an appellate court to review appeals from the decisions of other superior court judges in cases that used to go to the municipal court. A judge cannot fairly review the work of a colleague, knowing that perhaps next week their roles will be reversed. The appearance and substance of justice will be questioned and public confidence in the courts will be eroded.

All of the claimed economic efficiencies of trial court unification now can be obtained under legislation which directs the consolidation of court clerks' offices and the assignment of judges where needed. Giving exorbitant, unearned pay raises to judges at a time when non-government worker's wages are stagnant or in decline, at the cost of abolishing the "people's court", is not court reform.

Proposition 220 will destroy a proven, effective, and efficient two-tier system of trial courts by abolishing the municipal court. The municipal court is truly the "people's court." Its judges are elected from small districts close to the people. To abolish such an important court to boost the egos of municipal judges with higher status and higher pay is not court reform.

Proposition 220 must be defeated.

Don't let judges vote to abolish the municipal court and give themselves a pay raise. Vote NO!

LEWIS K. UHLER
President, National Tax Limitation Committee
EDWARD JAGELS
Kern County District Attorney