State of California
June 2, 1998 Primary|
Courts. Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation.
Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Put on the Ballot by the Legislature.
64.4% Yes votes ......
35.6% No votes
|Infomation shown below:
Fiscal Impact |
Yes/No Meaning |
Official Information |
- Provides for consolidation of superior court and municipal court in county upon approval by majority of superior court judges and of municipal court judges in that county.
- Upon consolidation, the superior court has jurisdiction over all matters now handled by superior and municipal court, municipal court judges become superior court judges, and the municipal court is abolished.
- Makes related changes to constitutional provisions regarding municipal courts.
- Provides for addition of nonvoting members to Judicial Council and lengthens some members' terms.
- Unknown net fiscal impact to the state from consolidation of superior and municipal courts. To the extent that most courts choose to consolidate, there would likely be annual net savings in the millions to tens of millions of dollars in the long term.
- A YES vote of this measure means:
- Superior and municipal
courts within a county could
consolidate into a single
superior court if approved by a
majority of superior court
judges and a majority of
municipal court judges in the
- A NO vote of this measure means:
- Superior and
municipal courts would
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 220:
- Yes on Proposition 220 will improve our
courts, save money and streamline
justice. It is estimated that Proposition
220 could save $23,000,000 in taxpayer
dollars. Thousands of prosecutors,
judges, taxpayer advocates, local
governments and law enforcement
groups urge you to vote YES on
Full Text of Argument In Favor,
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 220:
- Municipal courts--the "people'
court"--provide efficient and
effective justice for many small,
but important civil and criminal
matters. Proposition 220
eliminates municipal courts and
makes all muni-court judges
superior court judges--giving them
a huge pay increase without regard
to qualification--all at taxpayer
expense. No on 220.
Full Text of Argument Against,
- Contact FOR Proposition 220:
- Senator Bill Lockyer
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: Nathan Barankin
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 220:
- NOT PROVIDED
Live Election Returns|
- All Propositions
- includes results by county (from Sec. of St.)
League of Women Voters
Other Analysis of Prop 220
Campaign Finance Info
News and Analysis
- Prop 220 Contributions Data from the Secretary of State
- Contributions Summary for all Propositions
Orange County Register
Links to outside sources are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
Home (Ballot Lookup)
|| State Election Links
About Smart Voter
Created: June 17, 1998 11:14
Smart Voter '98 <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © 1998
League of Women Voters of California,
Smart Valley Inc.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor
opposes candidates for public office or political parties.