California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB3363

Introduced
3/5/20  
Refer
4/24/20  
Refer
4/24/20  
Report Pass
5/4/20  
Report Pass
5/4/20  
Refer
5/5/20  
Report Pass
5/12/20  
Refer
5/12/20  
Refer
5/12/20  
Report Pass
6/2/20  
Report Pass
6/2/20  
Engrossed
6/8/20  
Engrossed
6/8/20  
Refer
6/9/20  
Refer
6/23/20  
Refer
6/23/20  
Report Pass
7/7/20  
Refer
7/7/20  

Caption

Commission on Judicial Performance.

Impact

The bill notably impacts the existing statutory laws governing the judiciary by placing greater emphasis on the investigative processes related to judicial conduct. It necessitates that the Commission actively seeks to uncover instances of misconduct, thereby aiming to create a more accountable and transparent judicial process. By requiring the establishment of a review committee that will engage with various stakeholders—including the public, judges, and legal experts—the bill also ensures that the evaluation of judicial practices is comprehensive and inclusive.

Summary

Assembly Bill 3363 is a significant piece of legislation aimed at enhancing the operations and structure of the Commission on Judicial Performance in California. The bill mandates that the Commission take proactive measures to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct, thereby strengthening public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. Moreover, it introduces gender-neutral language throughout the relevant legislation and establishes the Committee to Review the Operations and Structure of the Commission. This committee will be responsible for evaluating the commission's effectiveness and recommending necessary changes to improve its functionalities.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding Assembly Bill 3363 appears to be broadly supportive, particularly among legislators and advocacy groups focused on judicial integrity and accountability. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary advancement towards maintaining public trust in the judiciary, reflecting an understanding that rigorous standards must be upheld. However, there may be some contention regarding the practical implications of increased oversight, particularly from those who feel that such scrutiny could hinder judicial independence or equilibrium.

Contention

One notable point of contention highlighted by discussions around AB 3363 pertains to the balance between necessary oversight and judicial autonomy. Critics may voice concerns regarding the operational dynamics of the Commission on Judicial Performance, especially in terms of resources and authority to investigate potential misconduct fully. Furthermore, the urgency of the bill—allowing it to take immediate effect—raises questions about whether there was sufficient time for comprehensive public input before implementing significant changes to judicial governance.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB1756

Committee on Judiciary: judiciary omnibus.

CA AB3281

Judiciary omnibus.

CA SB1356

Judiciary: training: gender bias.

CA AB2125

Judicial officers: disqualification.

CA AB2882

California Community Corrections Performance Incentives.

CA SB149

California Environmental Quality Act: administrative and judicial procedures: record of proceedings: judicial streamlining.

CA SB761

Department of Justice: civil rights investigations.

CA AB3265

California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership media campus projects: judicial streamlining.

CA SB1456

State Athletic Commission Act.

CA AB1248

Local redistricting: independent redistricting commissions.

Similar Bills

CA AB1577

Collective bargaining: Legislature.

CA AB143

Courts.

CA SB143

Budget Act of 2022.

CA SB40

State Bar of California.

CA AB3249

State Bar Act: attorneys: discipline: annual membership fee.

CA SB2

Peace officers: certification: civil rights.

CA SB53

Artificial intelligence models: large developers.

CA AB2457

Podiatry: Podiatric Medical Board of California.