Opinion ID: 2631036
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Creation of an Additional District Court Judge Position

Text: ¶ 7 The legislature has the authority to determine the number of district court judges for each county. CONST. art. IV, § 10. The legislature set forth the number of district court judges for each county in RCW 3.34.010. To change the number of judges listed in RCW 3.34.010, the legislature must follow the procedures in RCW 3.34.020, which provides that the legislature may change the number of district court judges in a given county only after receiving a recommendation from the supreme court. . . . based on an objective workload analysis that takes into account available judicial resources and the caseload activity of each court. RCW 3.34.020(1). If the legislature amends RCW 3.34.010 after receiving such a recommendation, the additional position becomes effective only when the legislative authority of the affected county documents its approval of any additional positions and its agreement that it will pay out of county funds . . . the expenses of such additional judicial positions. RCW 3.34.025 (emphasis added). ¶ 8 RCW 3.34.010 provides that the number of district court judges in Spokane County shall be 10. Delaney argues that the unambiguous language of RCW 3.34.010 sets the minimum number of district court judges as 10. For support, he cites State ex rel. Royal v. Board of Yakima County Commissioners, 123 Wash.2d 451, 869 P.2d 56 (1994), where we granted the applicant's writ of mandamus compelling Yakima County to add two additional district court judge positions to satisfy the six positions required by RCW 3.34.010 as of 1992. Id. at 466, 869 P.2d 56. In rejecting Yakima County's argument that the base number of required judges was the number currently in office, we held that the base number of required judges was the number listed in RCW 3.34.010. However, we qualified this holding with the recognition that any judicial positions created after January 1, 1992, would be subject to the requirements of RCW 3.34.020 and .025. Id. Thus, under Royal, the shall be language of RCW 3.34.010 alone does not establish the minimum number of required judges for positions added after January 1, 1992. ¶ 9 Rather, an additional position created under RCW 3.34.010 pursuant to the procedures in RCW 3.34.020 is effective only when the local legislative authority satisfies the requirements of RCW 3.34.025. Both parties agree that the legislature properly created the additional judge position in Spokane County pursuant to RCW 3.34.020. We must therefore determine whether the local legislative authority, the Board, satisfied the requirements of RCW 3.34.025. ¶ 10 For an additional position created via RCW 3.34.020 to become effective, the [local] legislative authority must document[ ] its approval and its agreement to fund the additional position. RCW 3.34.025. Delaney argues that the Board documented approval of the additional position by adopting the amendment to the Plan. He also argues that the legislative committee testimony from two district court judges and one county commissioner, which indicated that [t]he county legislative authority wants the new position to be created and has agreed to pay for it, represents the Board's approval and agreement to fund the position. The Board, on the other hand, contends that the amendment to the Plan and the committee testimony are insufficient to constitute formal approval and agreement to fund the additional position. Specifically, the Board explains that [s]uch testimony is analogous to lobbying and does not rise to the level of a formal act or agreement by a board of county commissioners. The acceptance and agreement to fund a judicial position requires a formal act and at least two of the three Spokane County Commissioners. [2] Br. of Resp'ts at 19-20. ¶ 11 The Board did not document[ ] its approval of the additional position[ ] and its agreement to fund the position within the meaning of RCW 3.34.025. RCW 3.34.025 requires specific approval and funding from the local legislative authority. Although the Board adopted an amendment to the Plan authorizing an additional position, it specifically and affirmatively did not establish or fund the position. The record is void of any formal agreement that [the local legislative authority] will pay out of county funds, without reimbursement from the state, the expenses of such additional judicial positions as provided by statute. RCW 3.34.025. In addition, the individuals testifying before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees do not constitute a [local] legislative authority under RCW 3.34.025. The Board has not established and funded the 10th district court judge position pursuant to RCW 3.34.025 and therefore has not created the position.