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

DON'T BE MISLED BY THE OPPOSITION. An independent study concluded Proposition 220 can save taxpayers a minimum of $23,000,000 annually by making full use of all judges! The Department of Finance did NOT oppose passage of Proposition 220 when it was considered by the Legislature. The retirement benefits of retired municipal court judges are not affected by Proposition 220--NO INCREASE IS PERMITTED. And, for municipal court judges statewide, who already handle superior court cases, existing law requires that they be paid superior court wages.

Proposition 220 will allow California's judges to be assigned to any case based on skills, abilities and training. It will hold the judicial branch accountable for the full and effective use of judicial time and resources. Education and training standards for hearing cases will apply equally to all judges. Proposition 220 ensures the highest standards for the future appointment of all judges.

Proposition 220 will provide flexibility to assign any case to local courts based on the availability of facilities as well as the convenience to the parties, jurors and other individuals. It strengthens the "people's court" by treating all cases as important. Courts will have the flexibility to offer the public full services in every location. Proposition 220 will strengthen the impartiality of existing Superior Court appellate panels by assigning judges for specific terms.

Proposition 220 will eliminate duplicative administration, conflicting procedures, and barriers to the full use of judges.

IMPROVE OUR COURTS AND SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 220.

HONORABLE MARVIN BAXTER
Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court
JAMES FOX
San Mateo District Attorney
ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA
Assembly Majority Leader