3,213,798 / 64.4% Yes votes ...... 1,783,071 / 35.6% No votes

• 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.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

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 county.

A NO vote of this measure means:

Superior and municipal courts would remain separate.

• Offical WWW Site
• Full Text
• Impartial Analysis from the Legislative Analyst

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 Proposition 220.

Full Text of Argument In Favor, Rebuttal

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, Rebuttal

Contact FOR Proposition 220:

Senator Bill Lockyer
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: Nathan Barankin
(916) 445-6671

Contact AGAINST Proposition 220:

NOT PROVIDED

All Propositions

includes results by county (from Sec. of St.)