Committee on Judiciary, chaired by Kalra, frames a measure that ties trial and superior court fees to the actual cost of providing services and requires the Judicial Council to approve any fee not expressly authorized by statute or rule, while directing annual reporting on fee structures. The core objective is to align fee practices with cost and to enhance transparency through a formalized reporting regime that tracks whether fee revenue exceeds the cost of service.
The bill strengthens access to court records, with a particular emphasis on electronic records. Electronic records must be viewable at the court and duplicable at a cost determined by the court. On-site viewing or copying using a member of the public’s own equipment would be permitted without fees, so long as the method does not contact the record, cause damage, or risk unauthorized access to court networks; courts may impose reasonable limits to protect records, prevent undue burden, and preserve historic or high‑value materials. In addition, the Judicial Council would adopt rules to standardize creation, maintenance, and preservation of records, ensure electronic records are as accessible as paper records, and recognize electronic signatures and certifications with the same legal effect as their paper counterparts. Records must be indexed and preserved for the required retention period, with ongoing alignment to technology standards.
From a regulatory and implementation perspective, the measure requires the Judicial Council to define “cost to the court” for fee calculations and to approve fees not explicitly authorized by statute or rule, while producing a series of targeted reports. By December 1, 2027, the council must report on any 2026–27 fees where revenue exceeded cost, including service details, cost basis, revenue, and user counts; further reports are due in 2028 and 2029 for the following fiscal years. These provisions create an ongoing transparency framework that could inform future adjustments to fee structures. Stakeholders include courts, the Judicial Council, the public, and court staff, all of whom would adapt to new cost-accounting practices, on-site public‑equipment copying policies, and expanded electronic record standards, with enforcement exercised primarily through statutory compliance and administrative oversight rather than private action.
| No results. | |||
Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.
Committee on Judiciary, chaired by Kalra, frames a measure that ties trial and superior court fees to the actual cost of providing services and requires the Judicial Council to approve any fee not expressly authorized by statute or rule, while directing annual reporting on fee structures. The core objective is to align fee practices with cost and to enhance transparency through a formalized reporting regime that tracks whether fee revenue exceeds the cost of service.
The bill strengthens access to court records, with a particular emphasis on electronic records. Electronic records must be viewable at the court and duplicable at a cost determined by the court. On-site viewing or copying using a member of the public’s own equipment would be permitted without fees, so long as the method does not contact the record, cause damage, or risk unauthorized access to court networks; courts may impose reasonable limits to protect records, prevent undue burden, and preserve historic or high‑value materials. In addition, the Judicial Council would adopt rules to standardize creation, maintenance, and preservation of records, ensure electronic records are as accessible as paper records, and recognize electronic signatures and certifications with the same legal effect as their paper counterparts. Records must be indexed and preserved for the required retention period, with ongoing alignment to technology standards.
From a regulatory and implementation perspective, the measure requires the Judicial Council to define “cost to the court” for fee calculations and to approve fees not explicitly authorized by statute or rule, while producing a series of targeted reports. By December 1, 2027, the council must report on any 2026–27 fees where revenue exceeded cost, including service details, cost basis, revenue, and user counts; further reports are due in 2028 and 2029 for the following fiscal years. These provisions create an ongoing transparency framework that could inform future adjustments to fee structures. Stakeholders include courts, the Judicial Council, the public, and court staff, all of whom would adapt to new cost-accounting practices, on-site public‑equipment copying policies, and expanded electronic record standards, with enforcement exercised primarily through statutory compliance and administrative oversight rather than private action.
| Ayes | Noes | NVR | Total | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79 | 0 | 1 | 80 | PASS |
| No results. | |||