On February 26, 2025, UPE continued its discussions with the Sacramento Superior Court regarding proposed changes to Courtroom Clerk assignments. Currently, permanent positions are filled through recruitment as openings occur, and judges who do not select—or do not attract—applicants receive clerks from the alternate pool on a rotating basis. The rotation differs by courthouse, with the longest being three months in criminal. Right now, only 3–4 judges lack permanently assigned clerks.
The Court argues that judges dislike frequent rotations and that alternate clerks want longer assignments. It also wants to reduce the administrative burden caused by the constant ‘churn’ of rotating clerks. Under the new plan, assigned-clerk recruitments would happen just once a year (around January, after judicial moves). Any judge still without a clerk would pick someone from the permanent alternate pool to serve for the rest of the year, and there would be no mid-year recruitment.
UPE believes this is an extreme response to a minor issue since few judges remain without a permanent clerk for long. In many cases, clerks avoid certain judges because of problems with those judges. Now, the Court will just force someone into that Courtroom for a year. UPE also doubts any alternate clerks truly want year-long involuntary assignments, since normal recruitments let them apply for judges of their choice—ensuring both judge and clerk have a say. Currently, minimal “churn” exists, and what does occur stems from filling in for overworked clerks, not from rotating courtroom assignments.
UPE repeatedly pointed out these issues with the Court’s plan and made it clear that our members do not support a yearlong rotation. In addition to potentially trapping a clerk in a bad situation, the yearlong rotation also limits the ability of other alternate clerks to work with the judge and build a report that could lead to a permanent assignment later. The plan does nothing more than placate a few judges who have difficulty getting permanent clerks.
In response to UPE’s advocacy, the Court agreed to a six-month assignment rather than a year but will not conduct recruitments at the end of that period. UPE and the Court will reassess the plan after six months. Members are urged to report any issues with the new system.
