SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 6512

As Reported By Senate Committee On:

Judiciary, February 7, 2002

Title:  An act relating to the methodology of determining the number of district court judges.

Brief Description:  Changing the methodology of determining the number of district court judges.

Sponsors:  Senators Kline, Johnson, Costa and Winsley; by request of Administrator for the Courts.

Brief History:

Committee Activity:  Judiciary:  1/28/02, 2/7/02 [DP].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Majority Report:  Do pass.

Signed by Senators Kline, Chair; Kastama, Vice Chair; Costa, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, Poulsen, Thibaudeau and Zarelli.

Staff:  Aldo Melchiori (786‑7439)

Background:  The Legislature determines if changes in the number of full and part-time district court judges are needed after receiving a recommendation from the state Supreme Court.  The Administrator for the Courts under the supervision of the Supreme Court uses a weighted caseload analysis to assess district court  needs taking into account:  the time that existing judges have to hear cases; the judicial and court time spent processing cases; the amount of a judge's annual work time that can be devoted exclusively to processing cases; and an assessment of judicial resource needs determined under the weighted caseload method.  If the Legislature approves the increase in the base number of judges, the base number and all related costs are paid by the county with funds provided by the state to the county criminal justice assistance account.

Summary of Bill:  The Administrator for the Courts under the supervision of the Supreme Court uses an objective workload analysis to assess whether the base number of district court judges  needs adjustment.

Appropriation:  None.

Fiscal Note:  Not requested.

Effective Date:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For:  The presently used weighted caseload method is less accurate and more time consuming than other currently available methods of predicting district court judge needs.

Testimony Against:  None.

Testified:  PRO: Mary McQueen, OAC; Janet McLane, OAC.