https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-delivers-2026-state-judiciary-address California Chief Justice Delivers 2026 State of the Judiciary AddressBalassone, Merrill Mon, 03/23/2026 - 15:21 News Release SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today delivered the 2026 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature. A transcript of her remarks is below, and an archived webcast of the address is available on the California Courts YouTube channel. Watch Image "Thank you all so much. Thank you Speaker Rivas, Senate President pro Tempore Limón, distinguished statewide constitutional officers and guests. I am proud to be joined here today by my colleagues from the California Supreme Court (and our Clerk and Executive Officer and court staff); justices, judges, and court executives from local courts around the state; members of our Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Bench Bar Coalition; and our justice system partners. I thought about different approaches I could take with my remarks this year. With so much going on in our nation—so much controversy, division, uncertainty, and chaos as well—I’ve decided to offer you something different. If anyone is looking for controversial statements or divisive rhetoric, you will not get it. Instead, I offer you normalcy and a calm and measured report regarding the important work our judicial branch has undertaken over this past year, and some of the major issues facing the judiciary. First, I want to commemorate a significant anniversary in the formation of our country. In 1776, our founders boldly declared their independence from Britain and its King, and stated that we are endowed with unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” With force and clarity, they set forth their list of grievances against “the establishment of an absolute Tyranny”—included among their concerns was a statement that the King had “obstructed the Administration of Justice” and “made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” They later offered a different path—establishing our constitutional republic of three separate and coequal branches of government. We must all safeguard this structure and the fundamental principles which form the basis of our government and the promise of this country. This year, the judicial branch plans to celebrate the unique role we play, and the privilege we have, to uphold the rule of law for all who appear before us—without fear or favor, with courage and steadfast commitment to our oath that we have taken to uphold our constitutions. Now we look forward to celebrating our respective roles alongside all of you. Our jobs are made more challenging, however, by the rise in threats against the judiciary—something I’m not sure our founding fathers would have precisely envisioned. The issue of judicial security is prominent in the minds of many judicial officers, and recent events have unfortunately demonstrated that service on the bench can pose significant safety risks. The Judicial Council of California has made judicial security a legislative priority. We need sufficient resources in order to protect “personnel, the public and court systems from physical, online, and cyber threats.” The council also will continue to advocate for legislation designed to protect the privacy of judges—an issue that is fundamentally intertwined with judicial security. A marked increase in negative rhetoric surrounding judges, including from elected officials, has contributed to these concerns. We welcome public scrutiny, transparency, and accountability regarding the legal reasoning reflected in our rulings. Public engagement, whether resulting in praise or criticism for our decisions, is commendable and should be encouraged. We do not, however, welcome divisive name-calling or inaccurate and uninformed accounts about our roles—we believe this serves only to distort the public’s understanding of the judiciary and shake their confidence in our democracy. And we should all emphatically speak out against normalizing personal attacks against judges—for all our sakes. Fortunately in California, we have many examples of how government should work, even in challenging times, and I would like to express my appreciation for your partnership and your support in these areas. I have spoken in the past regarding our three-branch solutions. I would like to touch upon a few examples. Remote Proceedings Since March 2022, over 6 million proceedings have been conducted with remote technology. In a one-year period from September 2024 to August 2025, that represented over 7,000 proceedings per day. Trends in positive experiences with these services have remained consistent over time, at about 95% satisfaction overall. The data unequivocally shows great public interest in having remote options, but existing statutory authority for remote proceedings is scheduled to expire at the end of this year (on January 1, 2027), or precisely I believe in 2027, but I’ll go with the end of the year for all of you. For the benefit of all Californians who see the advantages of technology and choose to appear remotely, I look forward to working with all of you to meet Californians’ needs and expectations in this area. CARE Act Proceedings As you know, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which you passed in 2022 and which has been implemented in phases through December 2024, is now fully operational in all 58 counties. Between October 2023 and January 2026, there have been a total of 3,810 petitions filed. During that same time, courts ordered 925 CARE agreements and plans; and a further 1,835 individuals are still being actively engaged in these court proceedings. The Judicial Council publishes this CARE Act data on its California Courts website, providing a fuller description of the CARE process for anyone to see. These numbers, understandably, may not be satisfactory to those whose loved ones do not qualify for CARE Act assistance. With the recent expansion of the program to cover bipolar disorders with psychotic features—in addition to the original criteria of schizophrenia spectrum disorders—we do hope to reach more people in need and help redefine what justice looks like for Californians living with certain behavioral health challenges. While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area. For each person who receives assistance—whether it is through a voluntary agreement or court-ordered plan or other referrals for services—their lives are greatly improved because of the CARE Act. In other words, the volume of petitions filed alone does not fully capture the overall effectiveness of the program. I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of our judges, court staff, and community partners who are managing the CARE Act petitions filed in our courts. As you know, they’re helping individuals with severe mental illness access housing, medication, and recovery services before they fall deeper into crisis. And these courts are not just legal forums, they are bridges to stability, safety, and hope for Californians who need it most. I thank our Governor, each of you in the Legislature, and each of our trial courts for your commitment to exploring ways to help these individuals. In addition to these two areas, I also look forward to partnering with you to address other ongoing, and in some instances, longstanding, issues of concern that are facing our courts. Judicial Positions First starting with our trial courts. We are grateful for the $70 million in ongoing funding that has been proposed in the Governor’s budget for the increasing costs of trial court operations. A longstanding problem our courts face, however, relates to the lack of funding for judgeships in counties with the greatest need. We are updating our judicial needs assessment—but the latest report from October 2022 reflects some stark realities I’d like to provide some context on: In recent years, the judicial branch has received funding for the 50 judgeships that were authorized as far back as 2007 (by AB 159 (Stats. 2007)): Two positions were funded in 2018 and allocated to Riverside County Superior Court; 25 positions were funded in 2019; and 23 positions were funded in 2022. Based on the October 2022 report, there was still a need even at that time for 98 additional judicial officers. While this funding has helped to minimize the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial needs, there are still significant, ongoing challenges and needs that remain—with the need for more judges being especially acute in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.   What this means in practical terms is that justice is not served the way that it should be. As an example, in Riverside County Superior Court, during the period from January 9, 2023 to March 6, 2026, 437 misdemeanor cases and 57 felony cases were dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (j), because of the condition of the court’s congested calendar. This is despite the Judicial Council making available temporary assigned judges when requested by the superior court, to help alleviate the burden on the court. Riverside, as an example again, has the highest use of our temporary assigned judges. Last fiscal year, the total expense associated with these assigned judges in Riverside County alone was about $3M. We will continue to make resources available to the courts through our Temporary Assigned Judges Program, and we look forward to working with all of you to find more permanent, predictable, and sustainable solutions to these challenges.   Artificial Intelligence I’d also like to touch upon AI. The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence continues to present both challenges and opportunities as we work to expand access to justice and improve efficiency across the judicial branch. In 2025, our Artificial Intelligence Task Force developed comprehensive guidance for courts on the responsible use of generative AI tools. The task force is now focusing on deep fakes and the impact of AI on the admissibility of evidence. I think you’ll agree with me that it’s a critical area to maintain integrity and public trust in judicial proceedings.   The Judicial Council approved a new rule of court on the use of generative AI for court-related work by judges and court staff. These guidelines emphasize accuracy, oversight, and transparency, while proactively mitigating risks related to privacy, bias, and security. They also underscore the importance of human judgment in all AI-assisted processes, ensuring that technology complements—rather than replaces—the expertise of our judicial officers.   The judicial branch is laying a strong foundation with its model policies, training programs, and pilot case studies that explore practical applications of AI.   We are committed to working collaboratively with all of you and our stakeholders to ensure that statutory requirements protect the public without unnecessarily restricting the appropriate and beneficial use of AI tools. Our goal is to strike the right balance between innovation and accountability, ensuring technology does not interfere with—but instead enhances—justice.   Impact of Federal Immigration Enforcement on Court Operations Last year, I also spoke about the considerable stress, anxiety, and confusion experienced by many Californians regarding federal immigration policies and enforcement as they intersect with our state courts. I also previously made clear that the federal government, of course, has the right and obligation to do its job but it should conduct its operations in a way that does not interfere with ours. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Public apprehension has continued to grow because of the way federal enforcement action has occurred—including the presence of federal officers in at least 17 of our state courthouses. These developments raise profound questions about access to justice, community trust, and the safety of individuals seeking legal remedies. The Judicial Council has taken proactive steps to address some of these challenges. Over the past year, we have provided extensive training for our courts on federal executive orders, the legal implications of immigration activity at courthouses, and relevant California statutes that are designed to uphold the principle of equal justice under the law. We have collected data informally so that we have a better understanding of the impact on court operations. Next month, the Judicial Council will consider a proposed California Rule of Court that would formalize our information gathering regarding civil arrests at state courthouses. This will help inform next steps as we consider options for protecting against encroachments on our ability to ensure that courts remain open and accessible to everyone. I would like again to reiterate that we can all perform our independent obligations consistent with our constitutional mandates in support of the rule of law, with our courts focusing on being available to everyone. We will continue to do everything within our power to ensure that all members of the public can freely access our state courts, to safeguard individual rights, and to promote the fair and timely administration of justice. State Bar Update I also want to report back on issues I raised last year with respect to the State Bar and the disastrous experience we had with the February 2025 bar exam. I can still say that in a calm and measured way. As you know, the California Supreme Court and the Legislature share an important partnership concerning oversight of the State Bar, with the court managing licensing and disciplinary functions and the Legislature setting the attorney licensing fee and auditing the bar’s governance and finances. For our part, the court has taken several corrective actions on the bar exam: Approved scoring adjustments to the February 2025 exam and an expansion of the Provisional License Program; Ordered the return to in-person testing using the Multistate Bar Exam provided by the National Conference of Bar Examiners; and Amended rules governing the exam and attorney admissions in order to strengthen and clarify the authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners and its role over attorney admissions. The amended rules address question review, validation, and proctoring; subpoena authority; oversight of the Office of Admissions’ budget; fee setting; and mandated cost-benefit analysis before there’s any proposed changes to the exam. It is too soon to report back on the future of the California Bar, but it is safe to say that nobody wants a repeat of what happened last year, and we will keep this experience in mind in determining what additional steps to take when presented with the State Bar’s recommendations in the near future.   Through our collaborative and complementary governance responsibilities, together we will continue to ensure that the public is protected and qualified new attorneys are admitted to the practice of law in our state.   Legislative Visits   I know that the challenges I have highlighted are not coming as a surprise to many of you, or at least I hope they’re not. I believe the courts have been transparent in explaining the difficulties we face and the needs we have in order to properly serve the public.   In addition, we have also invited you to come see the good work our courts do even under often difficult circumstances. Thank you for accepting our invitations to visit our various courts across the state. I know Senator Umberg thanks you too. I see him waving in the back. You guys must agree.   We continue to work with our local trial courts to coordinate legislative visits so that members can experience first-hand our day-to-day court operations—the challenges, innovations, and efficiencies—as well as the opportunity to meet with the committed public servants who provide court services to the constituents in your districts.   Since I last addressed you, we have been pleased to facilitate the visits of at least 15 senators and 22 assemblymembers, who have visited 15 local trial courts; some of you have visited more than once, some to more than one jurisdiction in your district, and some of you have worked directly with your local courts to schedule these visits.   We hope that, through these visits, you can see what I know to be true—we have a strong foundation for overcoming the real challenges we face.   We have over 2,000 dedicated public servants who are committed to the fair and impartial administration of justice. These judges, I believe, are significantly underpaid. The last judicial salary adjustment, separate from any adjustments provided under Government Code section 68203, was 19 years ago in 2007, when judges received an 8.5% increase. Judicial salaries are significantly lower than those of certain California state and local government attorneys, with growing pay differentials worsening over many years. I recognize we face a difficult financial budget this year, but I believe it’s necessary to flag this now because this level of inequity jeopardizes the judicial branch’s ability to attract and retain the best-qualified candidates for the bench. I look forward to discussing this further with you in the near future.   Californians rely on and deserve a judiciary that delivers the highest quality of justice and service. We do this through, not only our daily work in the courtroom, but through our commitment to upholding our ethical duties to maintain independence, integrity, and impartiality; our robust educational requirements; and through outreach efforts like our court’s annual special oral argument sessions at various locations throughout the state, my Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative, and countless other training, mentoring, and outreach programs held on a regular basis by courts at every level throughout the state.   This year, in addition to commemorating the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, we also mark an important milestone for the Judicial Council of California—the 100th year since it was founded through a vote of the people in 1926.   Through the council’s work, we have achieved greater consistency across courts, built a statewide administrative infrastructure, and consistently sought better funding for needed systemic improvements.   I am grateful for the vision, dedication, and hard work of the judicial branch leaders and Judicial Council members who have preceded me to build a strong and accountable judiciary that works collaboratively with our sister branches.   Because of this foundation—stemming from the structures we have in place, and more importantly, the people who are committed to this work—the state of the judiciary is strong, resilient, and committed to the rule of law and equal access to justice for all Californians.   Sister Branches And although my focus, of course, is on the judiciary—I also want to acknowledge two points regarding our sister branches of government.   First, I was so honored to swear in the Senate’s new President pro Tempore Monique Limón earlier this year. In the interest of time, I will not repeat all the “firsts” that her selection represents. But we’re so proud of her. It also has been a true privilege to work with Speaker Robert Rivas since his swearing in in June 2023. I also note this means Latinos are the leaders of two of the three branches of government—the judiciary and both houses in the Legislature—for the first time in California’s history.   Second—Governor Newsom. As he concludes his second term as Governor of our great state at the end of this year, I want to thank him for his thoughtful collaboration with the Legislature and the Judiciary, and for his dedicated service to the state.   I want to acknowledge the Governor for his collaboration on our three-branch solutions to improve access to justice in California, his willingness to listen to the needs and concerns of the judiciary, and his efforts to provide stable ongoing funding for the judicial branch.   Through his outreach efforts to encourage more diverse candidates from a variety of legal backgrounds, our Governor has also diversified California’s judiciary in a meaningful way. Of his 695 judicial appointments—with one more coming soon—more than half have been women, and more than half have been people of color. We thank the Governor for strengthening California’s judiciary.   And we’ll have more time with him—so I look forward to our continued collaboration. And I also look forward to the judiciary’s continued, strong partnership with the Legislature in our shared endeavor to serve the people of our state.   In closing, I would like to again reinforce the importance of our nation’s 250th celebration of our independence. The judiciary remains committed to the same guiding principles which are embodied in that document—equality, unalienable rights, justice, and the rule of law.   With your help, we have made great strides in upholding these principles. And the judiciary remains committed to navigating through the obstacles I have highlighted and safeguarding these principles for all future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to address you."   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-government-leaders-issue-joint-statement-250th-anniversary-declaration-independence California Government Leaders Issue Joint Statement on 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of IndependenceBalassone, Merrill Mon, 03/23/2026 - 09:45 News Release (From left to right) Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, Governor Gavin Newsom, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Governor Gavin Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas issued a joint statement on Monday to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The leaders convened following Chief Justice Guerrero’s fourth State of the Judiciary address to highlight the enduring importance of the nation’s founding ideals and affirming their shared commitment to those principles. This year marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which established our great nation with three separate and coequal branches of government. As the leaders of California’s three branches of government, we affirm our continued dedication to safeguarding the rule of law, and to upholding a government that serves all Californians.” Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Governor Gavin Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas signed the 250th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence Resolution, as the leaders of California's three branches of government. Read the transcript of Chief Justice Guerrero’s State of the Judiciary address. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-releases-statement-governors-budget-proposal-4 California Chief Justice Releases Statement on Governor's Budget ProposalBalassone, Merrill Fri, 01/09/2026 - 11:08 News Release California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero on Friday issued the following statement on the Governor’s budget proposal for the judicial branch: I appreciate Governor Newsom’s ongoing support of the judicial branch to ensure Californians continue to have access to critical services even during these challenging budget times.   The Governor’s budget proposal includes much-needed investments to keep up with the rising costs of trial court operations, to increase funding for court-appointed appellate counsel representing indigent defendants, to reduce case backlogs and workload pressures in our appellate courts, and to advance critically needed new courthouse projects.   As the budget is finalized in the coming months, we are committed to working collaboratively with the Governor’s administration and the Legislature to secure the resources necessary for the judicial branch to fulfill our mission of providing access to justice for all Californians.” https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-patricia-guerrero-issues-statement-judicial-branch-budget-1 Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero Issues Statement on Judicial Branch BudgetKaren.Datangel Tue, 07/01/2025 - 10:03 News Release California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today issued a statement on the judicial branch budget for fiscal year 2025-26:  During this challenging fiscal time, I appreciate the Governor’s and the Legislature’s commitment to maintaining critical judicial branch programs and services.  The funding provided for our courts—including support for language access, treatment court programs, court-appointed counsel, and facilities improvements—helps us perform our functions as a coequal branch for the benefit of communities throughout the state.  The judicial branch worked with our sister branches of government on budget solutions during this difficult time and we will continue that partnership as we implement efficiencies and safeguard equal access to justice for all Californians. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-delivers-2025-state-judiciary-address California Chief Justice Delivers 2025 State of the Judiciary AddressCorren, Blaine Tue, 03/18/2025 - 09:47 News Release SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today delivered the 2025 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature. A transcript of her remarks is below, and an archived webcast of the address is available on the California Courts YouTube channel. Watch               Thank you, Senate President Pro Tem McGuire, Speaker Rivas, distinguished statewide constitutional officers and guests, and, of course, Governor Newsom. Thank you for the opportunity to deliver my State of the Judiciary Address to a joint session of the California State Legislature. I am very proud to be joined once again by my colleagues from the California Supreme Court (and our CEO and court staff); justices, judges, and court executives from local courts around the state; members of the Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Bench Bar Coalition; and our justice system stakeholders and partners. Much has happened since I addressed you last year. I decided to start with an understatement. In March of last year, I emphasized the Judicial Branch’s priority with respect to advocating for a stable budget that the courts can count on to make public access to justice a reality in all 58 counties. In May, we were faced with $97 million in reductions at the trial court level and the prospect of up to 7.95% reductions for other parts of the Judicial Branch. I expressed the Judicial Branch’s commitment to doing our part to address the State Budget deficit, while working diligently to mitigate and manage the impacts to the courts and to the public of this current fiscal year’s budget cuts. It was definitely challenging—our courts found efficiencies but also had to implement some tough solutions. Necessary actions included closing courtrooms and courthouses, implementing some form of furloughs, and reducing hours for self-help and clerk’s office services. But we appreciated the opportunity to maintain an ongoing dialogue with our sister branches of government regarding the details of our budget. And I am pleased to say that following the Governor’s Proposed Budget in January of this year, courts have reported that the partially restored funding should help by: Reducing hiring freezes and delays;   Reducing service impacts; and   Preventing, eliminating, or scaling back on planned furloughs. Unfortunately, much uncertainty remains. Nonetheless, we remain committed to working with the Governor’s administration and the Legislature in the coming months as plans for the Budget Act are finalized. We know and appreciate that you all face hard choices and that you weigh competing demands for scarce resources as you review the Proposed Budget. It is our hope that you will continue to keep in mind the fundamental reason we seek our share of the budget. The mission, as you heard, of the Judicial Branch is to resolve disputes, and to interpret and apply the law consistently, impartially, and independently to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions, in a fair, accessible, effective, and efficient manner. We need funding to properly fulfill this solemn responsibility— as a coequal branch of government—to safeguard the constitutional rights and liberties of all Californians. In my third year as Chief Justice, I’m energized to be driving forward with the conviction of my own sworn oath to protect and defend the constitutions—guided, as all of our judges are, by a dedication to the rule of law, and inspired by the desire to give back, to deliver equal access to justice for all Californians. We, of course, do not do our work on behalf of the public alone. I want to emphasize how important it is that all three branches of government in California are here together today. This reflects our commitment to work collaboratively, with civility, and with mutual respect, on behalf of the people that we serve. Our relationships are informed by an understanding of our distinct roles and duties, protected by the checks and balances inherent in our democratic system of government, and strengthened by our personal commitment to the rule of law. I know that you share that commitment. I’ve had the privilege of administering oaths of office to many public servants—including many of you here today. The oaths we take represent the key pillars of our constitutional democracy—as we affirm to support and to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California. This foundation supports a healthy climate of productive public discourse, and thoughtful and thorough deliberation on issues that impact our state, our counties, our communities, our families, and others. Because of this foundation of justice, no one is above the law, no one is outside of the law, and no one is excluded from its rights and protections. And so with these principles in mind, I stand here proud to say that the state of the judiciary remains strong, and that we are ready, willing, and able to uphold our responsibilities and play our role to benefit the people who we serve in California. I also spoke last year of three-branch solutions. I believe that concept continues to be of utmost importance. That is why I encouraged judges throughout the state to engage with their local senators and assemblymembers to foster communication between our two branches. And I continue to encourage all of you to meet with court leadership and staff in your home districts and to experience firsthand the services and access they provide to all of your constituents. Since my address last year, at least 19 legislators spent time visiting nine local trial courts in their districts. I was pleased to be joined by President Pro Tem McGuire on a visit to the Superior Court of Mendocino County, and by Speaker Rivas on a visit to the Superior Court of Monterey County last year. These visits create a greater understanding of the operational challenges facing courts and how courts focus on efficiencies and innovations and efficiencies to better serve the public. You will see firsthand the great benefits of remote proceedings. You didn’t think I’d get through this without mentioning remote proceedings. Each business day, more than 6,500 remote hearings, civil and criminal, take place in our courts, saving court users an estimated 1.5 million trips to courthouses annually. Remote proceedings have been universally praised by both court staff and court users—as both time and cost savers—and most importantly, because the option to appear remotely gives litigants a choice about how they access their court system. I want to acknowledge and thank you for listening to our pleas for an extension of remote proceedings. Through budget trailer bills, we now have statutory authorization for criminal and civil remote proceedings until January 1, 2027. Through your visits to our courts, you will also see and hear from the dedicated judges, court executive officers, attorneys, and staff who help make up the face of the judiciary. They are talented, hard-working, dedicated public servants who constantly respond to increasing workload demands. And I am proud to serve alongside of them. Currently, we have about 67 judicial vacancies. I had to update the number since yesterday. We are grateful to the Governor and his Judicial Appointments Secretary for their ongoing work to fill these vacancies. As was recently reported, with nearly two years left in his term, Governor Newsom has already appointed 586 judges—including 131 in 2024—putting him on track to surpass prior administrations. We are all beneficiaries of Governor Newsom’s commitment to identifying and appointing excellent judges and leaving a lasting imprint on the state judiciary. Thank you Governor. I also would like to commend the proposal to provide long-overdue funding to support the Court-Appointed Counsel Programs for our Courts of Appeal and our California Supreme Court. They support an important need to provide effective, efficient, and experienced counsel for appellants with death judgments and indigent defendants on appeal. This funding is critical to attract and retain qualified counsel and to help rebuild the statewide panel of attorneys whose work is fundamental to the effective administration of justice. As with all the funding we receive, we recognize that we must be good stewards of the resources we seek. As part of our role in three branch solutions, I am committed to transparency and accountability with the public funds allocated to the Judicial Branch. Courts are enhancing caseflow management and case resolution for the workload reporting that we provide to you. At our April Judicial Council meeting, we will receive a report on our weighted caseload model—this helps us to accurately assess resource needs and equitably allocate the resources you provide. We seek to provide improved data collection and analysis that prioritizes actual level of effort and time to resolve cases over basic raw filings data. We know that raw filings fell during the pandemic, and that filings are now rising once again. But even more significantly—the complexity of the workload for courts has exponentially increased. We measure workloads using a “caseweight” methodology developed by the National Center for State Courts, and used in at least 30 other states, which allows us to consider both case volume and case complexity. For example, between 2017 and 2025, preliminary data shows that caseweights have risen 54% for felonies, 95% for juvenile cases, and 26% for conservatorship and guardianship proceedings. These are dramatic, fundamental shift that impacts our work. The law evolves each year as your branch identifies important policy issues that must be addressed—ranging from important issues such as various ameliorative laws touching upon important issues such as post-judgement resentencing, Juvenile Justice Diversion, Collaborative Justice, and the Racial Justice Act—as well as measures reflecting the will of the people through ballot measures such as Prop 36. These and other factors all affect the courts’ case volume, mix, and complexity and increases their workload. I look forward to providing the results of our Resource Assessment Study with you soon. As we update and refine our post-pandemic data to establish solid baselines for our workload, resources, and judicial needs, we will continue to advocate for judgeships in those counties that need it the most, including San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. And we will continue to focus on enhancing education and training for all of our judicial officers—so that we can deliver the highest quality of justice and service to the public—and to maintain the highest standards of professionalism, ethics, and performance. We also continue to focus on other key issues and programs of mutual interest and concern. And I’d like to touch on a few of those now. Since I delivered my last State of the Judiciary, our trial courts in all 58 counties have now implemented the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act. Under the CARE Act, the courts continue to collaborate with the California Health and Human Services Agency to deliver mental health treatment, housing support, and other services through a civil court process for persons with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders who often experience homelessness or incarceration without treatment.   As of February 21, courts have received 1,258 CARE Act petitions and held 2,092 hearings. The numbers continue to improve. And the numbers do not tell the full story. Behind the metrics are real people, real individuals, families, and communities benefitting from the act.   And the holistic approach of unifying and coordinating public services, as has been done with our Collaborative Justice Courts, yields other benefits—because there are some who might not be eligible for the CARE Act who are nonetheless receiving referrals to other services to meet their specific needs. Through these efforts, we are seeing significant improvement in assisting Californians struggling with mental health issues. When I spoke with you last year, I also stated that our court system must address the many issues presented by the developing field of artificial intelligence in a deliberative fashion. Since then, I appointed a task force led by Administrative Presiding Justice Brad Hill, who will continue to work with Administrative Presiding Justice Mary Greenwood and Judge Arturo Castro, as well as members of the Judicial Council on this ever-evolving issue.   The task force has developed a Model Use Policy that outlines the guardrails for safely using generative AI. They have just circulated a draft Rule of Court for public comment and this we hope will ensure that court users are protected as the branch begins to implement generative AI—and the Judicial Council will vote on a recommended rule later this year. The task force has also developed guidance for judges using generative AI in their adjudicative role. Stay tuned as this issue continues to evolve. Through funding you provided, we also launched the California Court Interpreter Workforce Pilot Program this fiscal year. The program covers training costs and exam fees for aspiring court interpreters with a commitment to work for the courts for at least three years after they pass all required exams.   19 courts are participating. More than 1,000 applications have been received from interested candidates. 126 candidates are in the program currently, and the application cycle opens again this month.   Because this is a five-year pilot, we believe that the program will help address the growing need for qualified interpreters to serve California court users with limited-English proficiency. Next, the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs support trained volunteers appointed by a judicial officer to advocate for children who are under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court. Volunteers spend time with children, monitoring their service needs, and provide child-focused recommendations to the court based on the best interest of the child.   We have forty-five CASA programs in 52 counties; they serve 10,600 children with 7,400 trained volunteers, and we appreciate your ongoing support of this program. The council and the courts are also collaborating with the California Department of Social Services to focus on a “Kin-First” Culture—the term used to describe a system that prioritizes placing children with their extended family network. These efforts are ongoing in Santa Cruz, Sacramento, Solano, and Kern Counties. And in San Diego County, this approach has seen an increase of 10% in children being safely placed with family. And through our Judicial Branch Facilities Program, we seek to design and construct functional, economical, and secure contemporary court facilities for all of these court users and members of their local communities. With your support, in the past year, the Judicial Council has successfully completed two new public buildings—in Shasta County and Riverside County. Construction continues on three projects anticipated to be completed this year, and one in 2026. And in light of recent attacks and threats to courthouses, we continue to evaluate existing facilities to identify physical security improvements to make those courthouses safer for the public, judicial officers and court staff, and justice system partners. Through all of these changes and improvements, the Judicial Branch is demonstrating its ability to play our role in effectively and efficiently serving the people of California. Sometimes we face significant challenges along the way. The recent administration of the California Bar Exam comes to mind. As you know, the California Supreme Court and the Legislature share an important partnership concerning oversight of the State Bar, with the court managing licensing and disciplinary functions and the Legislature setting the attorney licensing fee and auditing the bar’s governance and finances. Over the past three years, in light of high-profile failures to address attorney misconduct, we both have implemented reforms to address attorney accountability and to improve the State Bar’s operations. The court has implemented conflict-of-interest screening for key positions within the State Bar, implemented transparency measures to ensure that seated bar leaders annually disclose conflicts of interest, and approved a new rule of professional conduct that requires attorneys to report other attorneys for serious acts of misconduct. And the Legislature undertook its important role in auditing the agency’s disciplinary system and finances, updating the agency’s disqualification standards, and creating a diversion program for lesser violations of attorney misconduct. And this partnership will continue as we investigate the failures surrounding the administration of the bar exam last month. We understand the high stakes that are involved—for students who want to pursue a career and their dream of joining the legal profession, for those who hope to devote their talent and skills to helping others, for those who need the financial stability and independence that will come from jobs that depend on their ability to pass the exam. It is literally life-changing for many students. The additional stress, frustration, and anxiety faced by some examinees is inexcusable. For all those who had to endure these failures, I want to assure you that our court will exercise its plenary authority to implement appropriate remedies to help mitigate the harm. In response to these unfortunate circumstances, the court plans to enhance oversight over admissions, including the role of the Committee of Bar Examiners, to ensure high standards and improve the administration of future bar exams. Even before the founding of our State Bar, the court depended on the Committee of Bar Examiners to set high standards for entrance into the practice of law. But in recent years, the examiners’ role has been diminished. I intend to explore restoring the examiners’ importance in these matters by increasing their oversight of the admissions process, including its budget and the administration of the bar exam. Just as we trust the examiners to develop and enforce high standards to become an attorney, we should also entrust them to develop and enforce high standards to determine whether a vendor can administer an online bar exam without incident. Our applicants deserve a rigorous and thoughtful process for ensuring that they sit for an exam that fairly measures their legal skills. We hope that these students who pass the bar will all succeed, and as they do so, we hope they will commit to providing pro bono services to the most vulnerable among us. Nonprofits and pro bono providers can help ensure that low-income Californians have access to essential civil legal services. Like all pro bono providers, they should have our support and the freedom to represent those in need of their legal services, without fear of retribution or unwarranted criticism which threatens to have a chilling effect on the nature of the work they are willing to undertake. I would also like to address the considerable stress, anxiety, and confusion surrounding the issue of immigration policies and enforcement as they relate to our courts. The federal government, of course, has the right and obligation to do its job but it cannot (consistent with the Tenth Amendment) compel states to enforce federal immigration law. You have passed laws making this clear, including SB 54 regarding the sharing of certain information with immigration officials, and AB 668 which codifies the common law privilege against civil arrests in a courthouses in California without a judicial warrant. These laws have been upheld against various challenges. And in fact, the federal government’s own guidance document recognizes these important limitations—specifying such civil immigration enforcement actions should not occur in jurisdictions like California which prevent it. None of this means state officials or judicial officers have any intent to violate federal laws that prevent anyone from “conceal[ing], harbor[ing], or shield[ing] from detection” those who are in our country illegally, particularly those who commit violent felonies. Rather, we can all perform our independent obligations consistent with our constitutional mandates in support of the rule of law. The federal government can focus on federal immigration enforcement within the confines of the constitution; local officials can focus on local public safety; and our courts can focus on providing access to justice to every single person who comes before us. It is within our purview to ensure that all members of the public can freely access our state courts, to safeguard individual rights, and to promote the fair and timely administration of justice; we will safeguard our authority and responsibility to do so. So I will close with the same general thoughts I opened with this year: The Judicial Branch remains steadfast in its commitment to provide fair and impartial justice in accordance with our constitutional obligations. And as we do so—whether we are talking about our financial operations, key issues and programs of mutual interest, or broader issues of public concern—I look forward with energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to working collaboratively with you as we continue to serve the public. Thank you for your attention. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-issues-statement-passing-justice-edward-panelli Chief Justice Issues Statement on Passing of Justice Edward Panelli Balassone, Merrill Mon, 07/22/2024 - 10:10 News Release Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero issued a statement on Justice Edward Panelli, who passed away Saturday at age 92. Justice Panelli served on the California Supreme Court from 1985 to 1994: Justice Edward Panelli served with honor and integrity over a long legal career and as a distinguished member of our California Supreme Court. His unwavering commitment to justice and fairness was rooted in his humble upbringing as the child of immigrants, earning him the respect and admiration of his colleagues and the broader legal community. I extend our deepest condolences to Justice Panelli's family and friends as we mourn the loss of a great jurist and beloved member of our court. His memory and impact on the legal community will endure.” https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-patricia-guerrero-issues-statement-judicial-branch-budget Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero Issues Statement on Judicial Branch Budget Balassone, Merrill Fri, 06/28/2024 - 11:55 News Release California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today issued a statement on the judicial branch budget for 2024-25: We understand that our state is facing difficult fiscal times and we remain committed to doing our part to help address the statewide budget deficit. That said, we are concerned that these cuts to the judicial branch budget will have real impacts on operations, services, and access for everyone seeking to resolve disputes or assert their legal rights in our courts. We will work diligently to mitigate and manage impacts to the courts and to the public.” https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-issues-statement-governors-may-budget-revise-1 Chief Justice Issues Statement on Governor's May Budget ReviseBalassone, Merrill Fri, 05/10/2024 - 11:00 News Release California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero on Friday issued the following statement on Governor Gavin Newsom's revised budget proposal for the judicial branch: We understand that the current fiscal climate requires Governor Newsom to accelerate budget cost reduction strategies across all of state government and are concerned about the impact these cuts will have on protecting critical court programs and services. The entire state court system remains steadfast in our commitment to preserving equal access to justice for all Californians. I remain committed to working with the Governor’s administration and the Legislature as we all work towards a final state budget."   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/2024CivicLearningAwards Awards Honor Advancements in Civic Learning in Public Schools Karen.Datangel Wed, 05/01/2024 - 14:25 News Release On Law Day 2024, twenty-one California public schools received this year's Civic Learning Award, one of the most competitive civic learning accolades in the state. Now in its 11th year, the award is co-sponsored by California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. “I find these award applications inspiring; they all deserve our recognition,” said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “They tell the important stories of dedicated educators who, despite the challenges, are creating room for students to fully understand and practice civics.” ANNOUNCEMENT: “We know that when young people activate their voices, they can be among the strongest change agents in our communities,” said Thurmond. “Education is the cornerstone of realizing our democratic ideals, and these schools have made extraordinary contributions to building the leaders of tomorrow.” Since their inception in 2013, the awards have honored 519 traditional, charter, and magnet schools. In recent years, community schools and continuation schools have also submitted high-ranking applications. This year, a court school applied for the first time. In addition to the information provided by the applicant, points are added for schools in districts with Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) that include terms and actions associated with civic learning. Applicants also earn points for participating in the Judges in the Classroom program, and for creating processes and criteria related to the State Seal of Civic Engagement.  Schools at the highest level, Award of Excellence, receive a visit from California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero in September (Constitution Month), while judges from California Courts present the awards of Distinction, Merit, and Honorable Mention.  Schools honored with the Civic Learning Award of Excellence:   Madera Elementary School, Ventura County  Natomas Pacific Pathways Preparatory Middle School and High School, Sacramento County  John F. Kennedy High School, Orange County Schools honored with the Civic Learning Award of Distinction:  Ida Jew Academy and Valle Vista Elementary School (IJAVVE), Santa Clara County  Newton Middle School, Los Angeles County Yerba Buena High School, Santa Clara County Schools honored with the Civic Learning Award of Merit: Daves Avenue Elementary School, Santa Clara County Workman Elementary School, Los Angeles County South Junior High School, Orange County Anaheim High School, Orange County The following schools earned an Honorable Mention: Garfield Elementary School, Fresno County Tarpey Elementary School, Fresno County Maple Creek Elementary School, Fresno County Sierra Vista Middle School, Los Angeles County Sparks Middle School, Los Angeles County Santiago Charter Middle School, Orange County Mount Madonna High School, Santa Clara County Norte Vista High School, Riverside County Santa Clara High School, Santa Clara County Cordova High School, Sacramento County Granite Hills High School, Tulare County See past award recipients The Civic Learning Award program is administered by staff of the Judicial Council supporting the judicial branch Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative.    The awards program receives generous support from the California Lawyers Association.   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-delivers-2024-state-judiciary-address California Chief Justice Delivers 2024 State of the Judiciary AddressCorren, Blaine Tue, 03/19/2024 - 16:14 News Release SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today delivered the 2024 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature. The transcript of her remarks as delivered is below. Watch Image   Thank you, Senate President Pro Tem McGuire, Speaker Rivas, distinguished statewide constitutional officers and guests, and, of course, Governor Newsom. Thank you for the opportunity to deliver my State of the Judiciary Address to a joint session of the California Legislature, this time from your other house—the State Assembly. I guess you can say this is not my first rodeo! Although it looks much different than the ones I was used to growing up. I join you today in the second year of my 12-year term of office, representing a judiciary that is strong and resilient—one that is committed to serving all the people of California; enhancing access to justice; and protecting the rule of law in our constitutional democracy. I also join you today as no longer the newest leader of a state branch of government—congratulations to Speaker Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem McGuire who you recently welcomed to their new positions. And theirs, like mine, was a smooth transition of leadership that enables us to continue to pursue the objectives and values of our respective branches of government. Our presence here together today demonstrates that good government does work, that collaboration and cooperation, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to public service can deliver three-branch solutions to benefit all Californians. That is why I remain optimistic for the judicial branch and for our state. I am very proud to be joined here today by my colleagues on the California Supreme Court (our court executive officer and our court staff); judges, justices, and court executives from local courts throughout the state; the Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Bench Bar Coalition; and our justice system partners and stakeholders. Through this last year of listening to them, deliberating with them, seeking solutions with them, and striving to improve the administration of justice, they have only grown in my esteem. Today is a school day, so my biggest supporter, my husband Joe, and our two greatest sources of pride, our two sons Anthony and Christopher, are watching remotely. Or they said they would try. I'll quiz them later. When I addressed you last year, my focus was on the continuity of branch operations in a year of transition. And so now, I would like to update you on some of the priorities that I mentioned last year. First—Safeguarding and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary. Earlier this month we opened applications for this year’s Civic Learning Awards for California public schools—co-sponsored by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. Since the awards were first presented in 2012, we have recognized 518 public schools of all grade levels throughout California for advancing civic education. Through our Judges in the Classroom program, last year we scheduled 230 visits by judges to schools across the state, both in-person and remotely. I’ve participated in this program myself, and can tell you first-hand, that it’s a truly rewarding experience for the judges, teachers, and students. Civic learning teaches students about their democracy and develops skills for their future lives—such as critical thinking and problem solving; it teaches them how to be engaged, to communicate and collaborate with one another, and to demonstrate creativity, initiative, and innovation. And it promotes academic achievement—helping students remain involved and committed to ongoing learning. Recently, I announced the next phase of our Power of Democracy (POD) Civic Learning Initiative. This effort will be led by what I like to call civic-learning pioneer and stalwart Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, together with Judge Julia Alloggiamento who has also been very active in this area with the Santa Clara Superior Court. The vision of the initiative is to expand civic learning about our three branches of government, but I confess, with a focus on the judicial branch, in every district, in every school, for every child in California. We want all kids sitting in the classrooms today to be actively engaged in our democracy. Through these programs I believe that not only will it enhance the confidence in the judiciary, but in our government as a whole. The next priority on which I want to update you is our ongoing work to increase access to justice. And that includes increasing access through the use of technology. In response to the judicial branch’s concerns about fines and fees creating a debtor’s prison for low-income Californians who are struggling with debt from traffic and other infraction violations, we launched an Ability to Pay pilot project (known as MyCitations). This was in April 2019 with five superior courts partnering with the Judicial Council. The online tool offers low-income drivers an easy way to request a lower penalty, a payment plan, or community service. An initial grant from the U.S. Department of Justice was enhanced by all of you to fund this. MyCitations also enables Californians to interact with the court in a more efficient way. We have a new module allows litigants to contest eligible traffic citations by submitting a written statement and uploading their evidence online, saving them trips to the court. And new languages have also been added to the English and Spanish, including Chinese and Vietnamese so far. Through the end of 2023, more than 128,000 ability-to-pay requests have been submitted by over 91,000 Californians—with outstanding fines and fees being reduced by more than half—from $71 million to $34.3 million. I think it's important to keep in mind the demographics of the people that we're helping with these programs. Nearly 47% of court users accessing the tool reported that they receive public benefits. Over 89% reported incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. And the results of the pilot program are promising. They demonstrated that cases that were granted a reduction through this tool had a 61% success rate for full repayment. I am pleased to say the 43 courts who have already deployed the program so far will soon be joined by the 15 remaining courts to achieve full deployment this year. The third priority I want to report on is Increasing transparency, improving efficiencies as was mentioned, and increasing productivity without sacrificing quality. Caseflow management is an important process in meeting these objectives and providing timely access to justice. For the California Supreme Court, we've instituted internal targets for our court to meet. Our annual number of opinions has trended up, and we're also working our way through some important landmark new laws, such as the Racial Justice Act, which is impacting our workflow. The Courts of Appeal statewide have implemented a monitoring system to manage appellate caseload inequities and ensure that they too are promptly resolving cases.  Caseflow management and time to disposition is also an important tool for our trial courts. Data management and analytics help them to manage caseloads, provide interpreter coverage, and make jury duty more efficient--something my husband reminded me of that's important when he served recently. It also informs how they can work best with our justice system partners. From the clerk’s window to final dispositions—and everywhere in between—caseflow management is critical for the public we serve with the resources that you provide. And please keep providing them. The resources you provide are of course crucial—I would next like to touch upon our priority with respect to advocating for a stable budget that the judicial branch can count on to make public access to justice a reality for all 58 counties. For this budget year, I am grateful for Governor Newsom’s continued support of our mission to advance access to justice and for protecting essential funding for critical programs and services. Thank you. And yes, we know that during these challenging budget times, that along with the rest of state government, the judicial branch must be part of the solution to close the statewide budget deficit. We are committed to working with the Governor’s administration and with the Legislature in the coming months as plans for the Budget Act are finalized. This goal is directly reflected in what we call the Strategic Plan for California’s Judicial Branch. For me planning is an important discipline. I think anyone who knows me knows that I like structure and I like rules. The Strategic Plan provides this for the judicial branch. It's the foundational document for us. Since the first strategic plan was developed in 1992, the process has served to articulate our mission and direction, set our governance structures and priorities, and helped us to navigate some of the most significant reforms, improvements, and challenges in the history of California’s court system. At periodic intervals we've updated our long-term goals as California and the needs of its residents have evolved. Most recently, in December 2022, the Judicial Council amended our number one strategic goal of “Access, Fairness, and Diversity,” to add “Inclusion.” Although this may seem like a small change, as one of our council members shared at the time, “As important as diversity is, if you’re not included, it doesn’t matter.” We saw this as an opportunity to speak out louder and make more explicit the branch’s commitment to an inclusive court system in which all individuals are—and feel—respected and engaged, and their contributions are valued. And this first goal guides all facets of the Judicial Council’s review, analysis, and deliberations. We have one new member on the Judicial Council: I am very pleased to be joined here today, during Women’s History Month, by the council’s new Administrative Director—Shelley Curran. Shelley is the first woman to hold this permanent leadership role at the council, and the first openly LGBTQ+ person to hold this statewide office. Shelley joined the council from the Legislature, where she was principal consultant to two successive California Senate Presidents pro Tempore. Addressing the council following its vote to confirm her appointment, Shelley shared her philosophy about public service and working in government. I’m sure it will resonate strongly with you, just as it did with me. She shared that she subscribes to the World War II meaning of the phrase “good enough for government work”—when that meant as she describes it: “the best, the highest standards, the benchmark for which to strive.” Those same principles guide us in implementing the Judicial Council’s other strategic goals for the branch. One goal has particular salience these days: Modernization of Management and Administration. With respect to this goal—some modernization is voluntary. Some is disruptive and thrust upon us. You can guess where AI falls in that spectrum. Either way, change is the inevitable result. I don't recommend that anyone shout into their phones, “Win my case!” or “Write my brief!” But society, government, and, therefore, our court system must address the many issues and questions presented by the developing field of artificial intelligence. We must do this in a careful and deliberative fashion. I have asked Administrative Presiding Justice Mary Greenwood and Judge Arturo Castro to help lead the branch’s efforts to identify the foundational questions that must be asked as we consider the opportunities and challenges that are associated with AI. Their efforts will facilitate how we consider what might be appropriate uses of AI in relation to the judiciary with the guiding principle of safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. Another issue of focus and serious concern to us all is climate change and its associated impacts. The judicial branch’s early education focus on law and process related to the California Environmental Quality Act. But it's now expanded to include environmental science and the related and often highly complex litigation issues that judges are increasingly being asked to address. With the support of the Legislature, we're embarking on a more comprehensive water and environmental law education focus. The judicial branch is playing its part and supporting action and solutions for our state in these important areas and through other modernization and service initiatives. No discussion of modernization is complete without a discussion of remote technology. You knew it was coming. Court users themselves are choosing to access these new services and tools—including 24/7 eFiling, access to online records and research, self-help resources, and remote appearances. I want you to all know accessing court services remotely works! We know this from court users and staff alike. A recent Judicial Council report on this issue showed us that: Approximately 150,000 remote civil proceedings are conducted statewide each month; More than 90% of court users and 98% of court staff reported positive experiences; and Very few technical issues were reported. As always, more work remains to be done. But we can build on these successes. Addressing remote access is one example of effective three- branch solutions to better serve the state. Implementation of the CARE Act, of course, is yet another example of the three-branch solution model working successfully. To date, we have eight courts that have implemented the new CARE Court program to help deliver mental health treatment and support services to the most vulnerable Californians. The remaining 50 counties will implement CARE courts by December 1st of this year. Since the program was launched in October 2023, we are already seeing significant promise in assisting people with mental health issues. Whether these cases are filed by concerned family members or directly by those who need the services (with help from a public defender), we look forward to continuing our commitment to this important program and the people it serves who so desperately need assistance. Another pressing issue that deserves our attention is the ability to serve litigants by being able to provide them with a verbatim record of their court proceedings. Right now, that is not happening in too many cases. In just a three-month period between July 1 and September 30, of last year, nearly 40% of family, probate, and unlimited civil hearings in California had no verbatim record (133,000 hearings in just three months). We all want and need more licensed court reporters to be trained, certified, and hired, and the Judicial Council and the courts are doing all that we feasibly can to support that goal, including signing bonuses, retention bonuses, longevity bonuses, increased salary ranges, finder’s fees, and student loan or tuition reimbursement incentives. But the number of certified court reporters continues to decline and it threatens access to justice—especially for vulnerable Californians. As our court explained in 2018 in an opinion that we issued, “the absence of a verbatim record of trial court proceedings will often have a devastating effect on a litigant’s ability to have an appeal . . . decided on the merits.” These devastating effects are already being felt by far too many court users. I look forward to working with you all to find practical solutions to this ongoing issue. The final strategic goal for the judicial branch that I want to raise with you is the goal of Independence and Accountability. This goal encompasses quite a bit. It encompasses the independence of the judiciary as a separate, and co-equal branch of government, and the independence of judicial decision-making in order to preserve the rule of law and ensure the fair, impartial, and efficient delivery of justice. It also involves maintaining the highest standards of accountability for the use of public resources and adherence to statutory and constitutional mandates. There is a necessary balance between impartiality, transparency, and accountability. We embrace our obligation to describe our rulings. But what concerns me are unnecessary and unproductive partisan attacks on court decisions. I am concerned that these trends—and a decline in civil discourse—can negatively impact the public’s trust and confidence in our democratic institutions. We must safeguard the integrity of the court and our decision-making. Our judiciary is non-partisan and adheres to the rule of law—we do not make public policy. We embrace the robust ethics standards we have in place with supportive training and guidance. We also have misconduct oversight from an independent state agency. We believe in the value of precedent. And I believe that how courts interpret the law and adjudicate cases shouldn’t change dramatically when the members of a court change. And I will say again, as I did last year, that I am privileged to serve on one of the most talented and diverse high courts in the nation—a collegial bench with a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. There have been a number of studies on our Supreme Court this past year, and one reported that we had the highest unanimity rate in the court’s recent history—94%. I don't know if you should applaud, but I will say that is not because we don’t value dissent or share one another's opinions—my colleagues are not shy! I think that statistic may change at some point. But what remains constant is our respect for the rule of law, precedent, and legislative intent; we respect each other’s points of view, and the process of deliberating and crafting an opinion. And we respect one another. The California Supreme Court has a long history of setting precedents in areas relating to consumer protection, criminal justice, civil liberties, and racial integration. The importance of our work is not always limited to our cases alone. In 2020 during a turbulent summer for our nation, my colleagues on the court issued a statement on equality and inclusion that still resonates today—I'd like to share some of that with you. They wrote: "… Each of us has a duty to recognize there is much unfinished and essential work that must be done to make equality and inclusion an everyday reality for all… … We state clearly and without equivocation that we condemn racism in all its forms: conscious, unconscious, institutional, structural, historic, and continuing… … Each member of this court, along with the court as a whole, embraces this obligation. As members of the legal profession sworn to uphold our fundamental constitutional values, we will not and must not rest until the promise of equal justice under law is, for all our people, a living truth.” I can tell you that those same sentiments are shared by judicial officers throughout the state. I think you can see why I am proud to serve on this court and with my judicial branch colleagues—all 2,000 of them and 18,000 court professionals—the Judicial Council and the professional staff of the council, and our justice system partners. And I look forward to working with each of you on future initiatives, and the promise of equal justice under the law for all Californians. Thank you.