California Supreme Court
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 3 min
| California Supreme Court |
|---|
|
| Court Information |
| Justices: 7 |
| Founded: 1849 |
| Location: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento |
| Salary |
| Chief: $282,369 Associates: $251,274 - $264,007 |
| Judicial Selection |
| Method: Direct gubernatorial appointment |
| Term: 12 years |
| Active justices |
|
Carol Corrigan |
Founded in 1849, the California Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has seven judgeships. The current chief of the court is Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
As of November 2021, four judges on the court were appointed by Democratic governors and two judges were appointed by Republican governors.
The California Supreme Court holds regular sessions in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.[1]
In California, state supreme court justices are selected through direct gubernatorial appointment. Justices are appointed directly by the governor without the use of a nominating commission.[2] As of November 18, 2021, there are six states that use this selection method. To read more about the gubernatorial appointment of judges, click here.
Jurisdiction[edit]
The California Constitution gives the supreme court jurisdiction in mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus, and prohibition cases. The California Supreme Court chooses cases that address legal issues relevant and significant across the state. The court has appellate jurisdiction to review parts of or entire cases brought before the California Courts of Appeal or any ruling that results in a judgment of death. The court also reviews the recommendations from the Commission on Judicial Performance and from the California State Bar for misconduct and disciplinary hearings. The Public Utilities Commission is the only entity that appeals directly to the supreme court.[3][4]
The following text from Article VI, Section 11 of the California Constitution covers the organization and jurisdiction of the court:
| “ |
(a) The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction when judgment of death has been pronounced. With that exception courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction when superior courts have original jurisdiction in causes of a type within the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeal on June 30, 1995, and in other causes prescribed by statute. When appellate jurisdiction in civil causes is determined by the amount in controversy, the Legislature may change the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeal by changing the jurisdictional amount in controversy. (b) Except as provided in subdivision (a), the appellate division of the superior court has appellate jurisdiction in causes prescribed by statute. (c) The Legislature may permit courts exercising appellate jurisdiction to take evidence and make findings of fact when jury trial is waived or not a matter of right. [5] |
” |
| —California Constitution, Article VI, Section 11 | ||
Justices[edit]
The table below lists the current judges of the California Supreme Court and the appointing governor.
| Judge | Appointed By |
|---|---|
Vacancies[edit]
As of November 1, 2021, there was one vacancy on the court, created by the resignation of Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar.
Judicial selection[edit]
- See also: Judicial selection in California
The seven justices of the California Supreme Court are selected by gubernatorial appointment. The state bar's Commission on Judicial Nominee Evaluation—also known as the "Jenny Commission"—is required to perform an extensive investigation on prospective appointees. The commission recommends candidates to the governor after examining their qualifications and fitness, ranking them as exceptionally well qualified, well qualified, qualified, or not qualified. The commission is composed of attorneys and public members.[6]
Although the governor is not bound to these recommendations, the Commission on Judicial Appointments can approve or veto the appointment by majority vote.[6]
If they wish to retain their seat for the remainder of the unexpired term, newly-appointed judges are required to participate in yes-no retention elections occurring at the time of the next gubernatorial race, which is held every four years. After the first election, subsequent retention elections are for full 12-year terms.[6][7]
Qualifications[edit]
Candidates are required to have ten years of experience as a law practitioner or as a judge of a court of record.[6]
Chief justice[edit]
The court uses the same process for selecting its chief justice. The governor, with commission approval, appoints a chief for a full twelve-year term.[6]
Vacancies[edit]
Vacancies are filled by gubernatorial appointment. Appointed judges are required to participate in yes-no retention elections occurring at the time of the next gubernatorial race, which is held every four years.[6]
The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
Elections and appointments[edit]
2018[edit]
- See also: California Supreme Court elections, 2018
The terms of two California Supreme Court justices expired in January 2019. Both stood for retention by voters in 2018 in order to remain on the bench for a full twelve-year term. The retention election took place on November 6, 2018. Carol Corrigan and Leondra Kruger were both retained.
2014[edit]
- See also: California judicial elections, 2014
Kathryn Werdegar and Goodwin Liu were retained in 2014.[8][9] Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in July 2014 and retained to a full term in November 2014.[10]
Retention| Judge | Election Vote |
|---|---|
| Kathryn Mickle Werdegar | 72.6%  |
| Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar | 67.7% |
| Goodwin Liu | 67.1% |
| 2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Caseloads[edit]
The table below details the number of cases filed with the court and the number of dispositions the court reached each year.[11]
| California Supreme Court caseload data | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | Filings | Dispositions |
| 2020 | 6,470 | 6,417 |
| 2019 | 6,917 | 6,816 |
| 2018 | 6,812 | 6,759 |
| 2017 | 7,317 | 7,262 |
| 2016 | 8,079 | 7,947 |
| 2015 | 7,860 | 7.546 |
| 2014 | 7,907 | 7,765 |
| 2013 | 7,813 | 8,269 |
| 2012 | 9,237 | 9,739 |
| 2011 | 10,145 | 10,063 |
| 2010 | 9,562 | 9,439 |
| 2009 | 9,274 | 9,513 |
| 2008 | 10,521 | 10,440 |
| 2007 | 8,988 | 9,247 |
Analysis[edit]
Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)[edit]
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters, a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. Our goal was to determine which justices ruled together most often, which frequently dissented, and which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.
The study tracked the position taken by each state supreme court justice in every case they decided in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court ruled together. We identified the following types of justices:
- We considered two justices opinion partners if they frequently concurred or dissented together throughout the year.
- We considered justices a dissenting minority if they frequently opposed decisions together as a -1 minority.
- We considered a group of justices a determining majority if they frequently determined cases by a +1 majority throughout the year.
- We considered a justice a lone dissenter if he or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.
Summary of cases decided in 2020[edit]
- Number of justices: 7
- Number of cases: 76
- Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 89.5% (68)
- Justice most often writing the majority opinion: Justice Leondra Kruger (13)
- Per curiam decisions: 5
- Concurring opinions: 13
- Justice with most concurring opinions: Justice Mariano Florentino Cuellar (7)
- Dissenting opinions: 5
- Justice with most dissenting opinions: Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (2)
For the study's full set of findings in California, click here.
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)[edit]
- See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.
The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation, based on a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. To arrive at confidence scores we analyzed each justice's past partisan activity by collecting data on campaign finance, past political positions, party registration history, as well as other factors. The five categories of Confidence Scores were:
- Strong Democrat
- Mild Democrat
- Indeterminate[12]
- Mild Republican
- Strong Republican
We used the Confidence Scores of each justice to develop a Court Balance Score, which attempted to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores, while courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either had justices with conflicting partisanship or justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores.[13]
California had a Court Balance Score of -5.71, indicating Democratic control of the court. In total, the study found that there were 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and eight states with Split courts. The map below shows the court balance score of each state.
Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)[edit]
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of California was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, California received a score of -0.32. Based on the justices selected, California was the 14th most liberal court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.[14]
Noteworthy cases[edit]
The following are noteworthy cases heard before the California Supreme Court. For a full list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.
| • Ruling on state ban on same-sex marriage (2008) (In re Marriage Cases) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On May 17, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. [15] Following the decision, Proposition 8, which sought to outlaw same-sex marriage in the state of California, was approved in the 2008 general election. From November 5, 2008, to June 27, 2013, same-sex couples could not marry in the state, although existing marriages remained valid. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the United States Supreme Court restored a federal district court ruling which had overturned Proposition 8, declaring the law unconstitutional.[16] | |
| • Court upholds Proposition 66 as constitutional, but interprets provision to speed up death sentence appeals as directive, not mandatory | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On August 24, 2017, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 66 in a 5-2 ruling as constitutional. Proposition 66 was designed to change the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences. According to the state’s legislative analyst, Proposition 66 would have the effect of decreasing the time that legal challenges to death sentences take. In 2016, voters approved Proposition 66 with 51% of the vote. There was one provision in the initiative that the court said was directive rather than binding. Proposition 66 said the habeas corpus petition process and appeals shall be completed within five years after the death sentence is issued. The court said in its opinion that while this provision was phrased in mandatory terms, imposing fixed time limits “would undermine the court’s authority as a separate branch of government.” Rather, the initiative should be interpreted as asking courts to resolve cases as “expeditiously as is consistent with the fair and principled administration of justice.” During hearings in the case, the initiative support campaign conceded that the five-year requirement could be interpreted as directive, as no enforcement mechanism was provided in Proposition 66. [17][18] Justices Cuéllar and Ikola dissented from the court’s opinion to interpret this provision as directive, saying the provision should be invalidated. The dissenting opinion said, “A mandatory deadline, as all the parties agree, is not constitutional. Because that is precisely what the voters enacted, we must be equally clear and invalidate it.” [17] Learn more about Proposition 66 here. | |
History of the court[edit]
- 1849: The Constitution of California created the state supreme court with a chief justice and two associate justices who would be elected by a legislative vote.
- 1862: With an amendment to the constitution, the court was given jurisdiction to hear a wider variety of cases, and the number of justices was increased to five. Terms of the justices were increased from six to 10 years.
- 1879: The number of justices was increased to seven, with term limits increased to 12 years.
- 1926: The Judicial Council of California was established.[19]
Location of the court[edit]
The California Supreme Court meets in the Earl Warren Building in San Francisco, California.
The first court convened in San Francisco and remained there until 1854. In that year, legislative mandate required the court to relocate to the to-be-determined state capitol. The court moved to Sacramento in 1855, and returned to San Francisco in the 1870s. In 1874, the state legislature ordered that the court would hear cases for two months of each year in both San Francisco and Sacramento.[19]
Noteworthy firsts[edit]
- 1977: Rose Bird became the first female justice to serve on the court. She was also the court's first female chief justice.[20]
- 1989: Justice Joyce Kennard was the first Asian-American to serve on the court.[21]
- 2010: Tani Cantil-Sakauye became the first Asian-American to serve as chief justice of the court.[22]
Courts in California[edit]
- See also: Courts in California
In addition to the federal courts in California, there are two types of appellate courts and one general jurisdiction trial court. Their infrastructure and relationship are illustrated in the flow chart below.
Party control of California state government[edit]
A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government.California has a Democratic trifecta. The Democratic Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature.
.California Party Control: 1992-2021
Sixteen years of Democratic trifectas • No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
See also[edit]
External links[edit]
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ Courts Newsroom, "California Supreme Court," accessed August 17, 2021
- ↑ Note: In New Hampshire, a judicial selection commission has been established by executive order. The commission's recommendations are not binding.
- ↑ California Courts, "Supreme Court of California Booklet,"accessed August 18, 2021
- ↑ California Courts, "About the Supreme Court," accessed August 18, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: California," accessed October 2, 2014
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Justices of the supreme and appellate courts," accessed April 7, 2014
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Supreme Court headed for change," April 4, 2014
- ↑ Stanford Law School, "Justice Goodwin Liu," accessed April 22, 2014
- ↑ California Secretary of State Voter Guide, "Justices of the Supreme Court," accessed August 26, 2014
- ↑ California Courts, "Statewide Caseload Trends," accessed August 17, 2021
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ The Court Balance Score is calculated by finding the average partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court. For example, if a state has justices on the state supreme court with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Court Balance is the average of those scores: 3.3. Therefore, the Confidence Score on the court is Mild Republican. The use of positive and negative numbers in presenting both Confidence Scores and Court Balance Scores should not be understood to that either a Republican or Democratic score is positive or negative. The numerical values represent their distance from zero, not whether one score is better or worse than another.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gay marriage ban overturned," May 17, 2008
- ↑ Huffington Post, "Supreme Court Rules On Prop 8, Lets Gay Marriage Resume In California," June 26, 2013
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Justia', "Briggs v. Brown," August 24, 2017
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California Supreme Court strikes down key provision of death penalty law," August 24, 2017
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 California Supreme Court Historical Society, "History of the California Supreme Court," accessed December 23, 2014
- ↑ New York Times, "Rose Bird, Once California's Chief Justice, Is Dead at 63," December 6, 1999
- ↑ Women's Legal History, "Joyce L. Kennard," accessed August 18, 2021
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "Cantil-Sakauye sworn-in as state Supreme Court chief justice," December 3, 2010
Federal courts:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Southern District of California • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Southern District of California
State courts:
California Supreme Court • California Courts of Appeal • California Superior Courts
State resources:
Courts in California • California judicial elections • Judicial selection in California
.JPG){kind=link}
| ||||||||
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF