AB 2708 amends Penal Code section 890 to alter the wording that sets grand juror pay. The statutory $15 per day fee and the existing mileage‑reimbursement reference remain in place; the bill’s change is presented as technical and nonsubstantive.
For practitioners: this is a cleanup bill. It does not increase compensation, change who is eligible to serve, nor alter the mechanism for mileage reimbursement.
Counties, courts, and payroll administrators should expect no operational change beyond updating statutory citations or local ordinance cross‑references if they track state text verbatim.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Penal Code §890’s text that prescribes grand jurors’ fees, preserving the statutory $15 per day rate and the existing mileage reimbursement phrasing but adjusting wording for clarity. It does not create new duties, funding, or enforcement mechanisms.
Who It Affects
County courts, county payroll and auditor offices, grand jurors (as pay recipients), and legislative drafters who monitor statutory language. It does not change eligibility or duties for grand jurors or state appropriation rules.
Why It Matters
Although minor, the amendment removes potential ambiguity in the statute’s wording that could confuse clerks or vendors who automate juror pay or citations. It also leaves intact a flat $15/day statutory rate that has policy implications if not indexed or revised later.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2708 revises the text of Penal Code §890, which governs compensation for grand jurors. The bill preserves the rule that, unless another statute or county ordinance provides a higher amount, grand jurors are to receive fifteen dollars ($15) per day for each day served, and are entitled to the same mileage reimbursement that county employees receive for travel when attending court as grand jurors.
The bill’s amendment is limited to wording and punctuation changes intended to clarify statutory phrasing rather than to change the meaning.
Because the bill makes a textual clean‑up rather than a policy overhaul, it does not authorize additional spending or create any new administrative duties. County payroll systems that compute juror pay will continue to use the $15 figure unless counties choose to set a higher rate by ordinance.
Similarly, the provision referencing mileage reimbursement remains tied to the mileage rate applicable to county employees rather than establishing a separate grand juror mileage schedule.In practice, the most likely effects are administrative: legal counsel for counties and court clerks may update templates, internal guidance, and public‑facing materials to match the revised statutory language. For auditors and systems that validate statutory citations, the amendment reduces the risk that a typographical or syntactic oddity in the old text would generate unnecessary compliance queries or automation errors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2708 amends Penal Code section 890 — the statute that sets grand juror compensation.
The statutory daily fee remains fifteen dollars ($15) per day; the bill does not change that amount.
The statute continues to tie mileage reimbursement to the rate applicable to county employees rather than specifying a separate figure.
The Legislature characterizes the change as technical and nonsubstantive; the bill includes no appropriation and no fiscal committee referral.
Operational impact is limited to clerical updates (statutory citations, payroll templates, automated validation rules) rather than substantive procedural or budgetary changes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Clarifies statutory wording on grand juror fees and mileage
This is the bill’s sole operative change: it revises the language that prescribes a grand juror’s daily fee and references mileage reimbursement. The practical effect is limited to clarifying the statute’s phrasing; the rate ($15/day) and the linkage to county employee mileage reimbursement remain unchanged. For administrators who parse statute text automatically, the clearer wording reduces the chance of misreading or software errors.
Frames the amendment as technical and nonsubstantive
The digest explicitly calls the change technical and nonsubstantive. That label signals to courts, agencies, and budget offices that the Legislature did not intend to alter legal rights, obligations, or fiscal exposure. In practice, that designation affects how auditors and counsel treat the amendment: as clarifying existing law rather than creating new authority or obligations.
No appropriation, no fiscal committee referral
The bill lists no appropriation and no fiscal‑committee action, which is consistent with a nonbudgetary, technical amendment. Counties retain discretion under existing law to set higher fees by ordinance; the state’s budget and county fiscal responsibilities are unchanged by this text edit.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- County court clerks and payroll administrators — benefit from clearer statutory language that reduces the chance of citation or automation errors when processing juror pay.
- Grand jurors — benefit indirectly from reduced administrative confusion about pay and mileage calculations, although their compensation level is unchanged.
- County counsel and legislative drafters — benefit because the amendment removes a drafting anomaly and lowers the likelihood of litigation over parsing the old text.
Who Bears the Cost
- County IT and payroll teams — bear minimal one‑time costs to update templates, internal guidance, and any automated validation that referenced the prior wording.
- County governments as employers — continue to bear the cost of paying jurors at the unchanged $15/day rate and mileage; if counties want to raise pay they must act locally.
- Legislative and court administrative staff — incur minor drafting and publication tasks to circulate the corrected statutory text in official materials.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is procedural clarity versus substantive reform: it removes textual ambiguity to reduce administrative friction, but by design it forecloses addressing the substantive issue many practitioners care about — whether the $15/day fee and the mileage linkage remain appropriate policy choices.
Small, technical amendments are not neutral in practice. Even a clarifying edit can prompt local administrators to audit their pay policies and software, which produces modest administrative work.
The bill leaves intact a flat $15/day rate that many stakeholders consider outdated; by choosing not to address adequacy or indexing, the Legislature preserves the status quo while eliminating only a textual ambiguity. That approach avoids immediate budgetary impact but leaves unresolved policy questions about juror compensation levels and whether they should be adjusted for inflation or tied to a formula.
Another implementation ambiguity concerns the mileage language. The statute ties grand juror mileage reimbursement to the rate for county employees; the bill leaves that linkage untouched.
That can simplify administration where counties already have clear mileage rules, but it also imports whatever complexity or changeability exists in county employee reimbursement policies into grand juror pay without creating a separate statutory floor or process for adjustments. Finally, labeling the change as nonsubstantive narrows review options: agencies and courts are less likely to treat the amendment as an invitation to revisit underlying policy, which can frustrate stakeholders who hoped a legislative fix would address pay adequacy.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.