Swearing-in ceremony comes at a time of pressure for the court system
by Brian Leubitz
Goodwin Liu officially got the thumbs up yesterday, and will be sworn in as the 4th Asian-American Justice of the 7 member panel. The occasion also marks the first time the Court has ever had an Asian-American majority.
But the state court system has taken a beating over the last eighteen months, right along with the rest of the state government. Of the three billion dollars that used to come from the general fund for the courts, that number is down to about $2.1 billion. In other words, a cut that is roughly 30% of the state's share. And, as a side note, the general fund is still the greatest source of revenue for the courts.
The cuts have hit different counties in different ways, however. I've written about the struggles at the San Francisco courts, where the cuts were felt most acutely. However, it seems that Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein has reached a deal with leaders of the Administrative Office of the Courts to save a big chunk of what was to be cut:
An emergency funding compromise reached with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would significantly reduce the San Francisco Superior Court's staff layoffs from 177 to 75 and allow the Court to keep 11 civil courtrooms open, including both complex litigation departments, Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein announced today. The agreement, which was struck after negotiations that began late last week and continued over the weekend, must be approved by the Judicial Council in a special meeting on September 9, 2011.
"This agreement represents a true compromise with the AOC to help the San Francisco Superior Court lessen the blow on access to justice," Judge Feinstein said. "If the Judicial Council approves the terms of the agreement, our Court would reduce civil courtroom closures from 25 to 14 and lay off 15 percent instead of 40 percent of our staff."
You can check the full release here. Judge Feinstein has never had particularly good relations with the AOC, as they have clashed over local court funding. But while this agreement saves civil justice in San Francisco for 18 months or so, the crisis is far from over. The courts, allegedly a co-equal branch of government, need funding just to keep the lights on.
Rumors of a possible ballot measure have been floated, but as of yet, neither the funding nor the will has been present. Another cycle of court funding crisis will likely change that.
On several occasions I've bemoaned cuts to the state court system. But the recent cuts will devastate the justice system in California. Take what is about to happen in San Francisco as an example:
Forty-one percent of San Francisco Superior Court staff will be laid off, and 40 percent of courtrooms will be closed in September due to California's latest $150 million in cuts to the statewide judiciary. Those cuts are in addition to the $200 million already slashed earlier this year.(SF Examiner:)
Under Constitutional requirements, criminal cases must be held in a "speedy" manner. That's important for a number of reasons, and I don't think the priority for criminal cases would change even if not Constitutionally required. However, that also means that civil cases are going to be almost at a standstill.
At first blush, no big deal, right? Well, perhaps it isn't that big of a deal if that crazy neighbor down the street can't get a remedy for his tree related dispute, or if some corporation is left holding the bag for a million bucks or two. But in many cases, these are real people's lives.
It's already taking some civil cases nearly two years to move through the system. Divorces, child-custody and other family-law matters will take between eight and 18 months longer to settle after 200 court clerks, court reporters, research attorneys and management employees are no longer on the job and 25 courtrooms have been closed, according to Michael Yuen, the Superior Court's chief executive officer.
In addition to the family cases, these cuts will make big winners out of big corporations that have nearly unlimited legal budgets don't mind delaying litigation, and big losers out of plaintiffs who are trying to be compensated for injuries. Don't plan on getting that big insurance company to speed up the process any time soon. Why should they? They can just hold onto the money and earn the interest while the courts can't do a damn thing about it.
To be sure, the court system could implement a number of cost-saving workforce reductions and technology improvements that would save millions of dollars. For example, unlike the federal court system, the state courts require filings to be submitted in hard copy rather than electronic filing. This means hundreds of employees in the system are at windows stamping papers that could be processed much more smoothly by computers.
California should be a leader in using technology to reduce court costs and the delays of litigation, and cuts to the system aren't necessarily antithetical to that goal. However, these cuts go too far, too fast. Some right-wingers may agree with me on vastly different grounds, look no further than that SF Examiner: article quoted above, where they call for voters to do something at the ballot box.
Of course, what would they have voters do? They essentially have two choices, vote for the incumbent Democrats or for the obstinate Republicans and their repeated requests for further cuts. What options are they given.
"Courts are not a luxury," Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye said. "They are at the heart of our democracy. These cuts threaten access to justice for all."
Democrats attempted to get revenue that would have prevented the last round of cuts, but unfortunately, trying just isn't good enough in this case. We need revenue now, but until we get it, we have to come up with some way to finance the court system at reasonable levels.
I missed this a couple of weeks ago, but the fact that the state will not assist litigants in civil case find legal representation bears pointing out. California has always been an innovator on legal practice, and in this case, in a good way.
Although some analysts worry that it could swell state court dockets or eat up resources better spent on other needs of the poor, the pilot project that won bipartisan endorsement in the state Assembly will be financed by a $10 increase in court fees for prevailing parties.
Anybody confronted with criminal charges has a constitutional right to an attorney, as set out in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Gideon vs. Wainwright in 1963. But such a right does not apply in civil court, and the majority of citizens fighting what can be life-altering civil actions now attempt to handle their cases without professional guidance.
*** *** ***
"How ironic that you can be arrested for stealing a small amount of food -- a box of Twinkies from a convenience store -- and you're entitled to counsel. But if your house is on the line, or your child is on the line, or you're being abused in a domestic relationship, you don't have the same right to counsel," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles Democrat who sponsored the bill. (LAT 10/17/09)
We're talking about 4 million litigants each year. 4 million people trying to retain custody of their children, or trying to fight an unlawful eviction. The number of unlawful evictions that are carried out simply because the tenant couldn't find free representation alone boggles the mind. Despite recent efforts to make the court system more friendly, let's face it, courts are intimidating. Going in without an attorney who knows how these things work can be all that much more scary for people in a tough position.
This is really an outstanding bill by Mike Feuer, and hopefully it will be expanded throughout the state, and eventually to the nation. For too long, the rich have had a huge advantage over those without the means. Court cases should be decided based upon the facts, not the fact that one party couldn't hire an attorney.
On the flip side of innovation, we have the fact that California's courts are hamstrung by the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975. Way back then, the state set the limit for non-economic damages at $250,000. A substantial sum of money at the time, the equivalent of about $1million after adjusting for infaltion, it's a far less hefty sum today. In fact, even Mississippi has a higher limit at $500,000. So the saying goes if you run somebody over with your car, make sure you finished the job, it'll be cheaper. Kill a small child or a retired person, and the family will get only that sum of money. No matter how egregious the medical malpractice, it's limited to $250,000.
And the cap is working. Very well. So well that it not only eliminates the silly claims, but the legitimate ones as well. Adjusted for inflation, the total 2008 nationwide sum of $3.6 billion is the second lowest on record.
While the insurance companies will tell you how doctors are suffering, and the California Medical Association, cries crocodile tears, it turns out the reason for the rising costs of insurance can't be pegged on rising medical malpractice claims. Sure, in other states, you can make a plausible argument to tie malpractice to increasing verdicts. But not in California since 1975. MICRA needs reform if we want one of the only working mechanisms to protect medical consumers to actually work. This is one innovation that needs repair.
William Gladstone was quite the powerful man in British politics back in the 19th Century. Four times the prime minister, and hardly a screaming progressive, he was known for slashing government spending and his abhorrence of the income tax. (Update: As pointed out in the comments, liberals back then were laissez faire. So, Gladstone was a liberal, just not in any recognizable form today.) Yet, even he understood the importance of justice to a country's legitimacy and the fact that it must be swift.
Yesterday, the California Judicial Council voted to close all state courts on the third Wednesday of the month. Everything just stops for one day per month. Right in the middle of the week, perhaps to make a point, state courts simply will not function. No murder trials, no contract disputes, no family courts. Individual judges will likely remain on call for critical matters, but the system will grind to a halt. It's not a pretty result, but in the end, closing a $400+ million gap was simply too challenging without the closure.
This is an untenable result. What have we become? Does living within our means really mean sinking to 3rd world status? Clearly, this all-cuts budget will, sooner rather than later, result in a state that simply does not work for its citizens.
As we move forward, Californians are slowly realizing what just happened. This is the result of an all-cuts budget, and Arnold is now taking some of the political heat. But the question is will this cause a change in voting behavior. Listen, nobody in their right mind thinks John and Ken and their Zombie Followers are going to change their stripes. The question is whether that mushy middle will put 2 and 2 together.
But while electing more Democrats would be helpful, it is simply not enough. Even electing better Democrats will be insufficient to ultimately rectify our problems. The rot at the top has sunk so deeply into the system, the whole thing is collapsing.
Those who support Progressive causes are in an odd position these days: we're often in the majority on issues that matter; and we're seriously talking about how to turn what, just a few years ago, was a wish list...into a "reality list".
Staying in the majority, however, requires the assistance of centrist voters--and that means, from time to time, finding philosophical compromise with voters we'd like to keep "in the fold".
In years past, the issue of the death penalty has created a considerable chasm between Progressives and centrists; with the one side concerned about the misapplication of capital punishment, and the other convinced that, for the most heinous of crimes, the only way to achieve a truly just outcome is for the guilty party to face the most severe of punishments.
What if we could bridge that gap?
In today's discussion we propose to do exactly that: to create a death penalty process that only executes those who are truly guilty and excludes those who might not deserve to be put to death...in fact, those who might not be guilty of any crime at all.
(I want to welcome SF's District Attorney Kamala Harris. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
States across our country are facing budget deficits. California is projected to begin next fiscal year with a deficit of nearly 25 billion dollars, equaling one fourth of the state's entire general fund. Over 10 billion of that general fund supports corrections and law enforcement. In this fiscal crisis, there is no denying the facts: tough budget times are here for public safety agencies. As the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, I am personally familiar with the difficult circumstances we face. Without a significant shift in local and state practices, we can predict that shrinking law enforcement and corrections funding will result in higher crime rates, less support for victims, and fewer offenders being held accountable. If ever there was a time to think outside the box and break with the failed approaches of the past, the time is now. We need to do something different.
In San Francisco, I have developed a smart on crime approach: we must be tough on serious and violent offenders while we get just as tough on the root causes of crime. In my office, we have raised felony conviction rates and sent more violent offenders to state prison, at the same time we have launched innovative, cost effective approaches to reduce recidivism, truancy, and childhood trauma. With a genuine investment in breaking cycles of crime, we can improve public safety at the same time that we save precious public resources.
Does your credit card or bank loan agreement have an "arbitration clause?" More and more consumer-oriented contracts and "agreements" have clauses specifying that disputes must go to arbitration rather than our civil justice system. The justification for this is that arbitration saves the time and expense of working within our legal system. But here's the thing: the corporations choose the arbitrators and every arbitrator knows they will never, ever, ever, ever (ever) get another job if they rule against the corporations. Never.
And guess what: 98.8% of arbitrations end up in favor of the corporations. This is not a surprise.
Immediately after the 2004 presidential election results came in many political analysts floated the notion that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that required the state to enact marriage equality was responsible for George Bush's re-election. The hypothesis was that the anti-marriage equality initiatives on the ballot energized the right to turnout and they helped push Bush over the top. That theory was roundly rejected by the actual exit polling data. Unfortunately that myth still lives on and is influencing political analysis to this day. Today it appeared in Peter Schrag's column in the Bee, which was picked up by Boi from Troy and subsequently linked by Marc Ambinder in the Atlantic.
Given its hot-button nature in an election season, there must be a lot of Democrats, from the presidential candidates down, who are hoping that the court follows Jerry Brown's pleadings. To this day, a lot of people believe that the 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court striking down that state's ban on same-sex marriages was a major factor in the defeat of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
Schrag really needs a phrase in there that recognizes that while people continue to believe that myth, it has been disproved. It is something the bloggers, particularly kos harped about, but did not make it very far into the mainstream, despite the numerical evidence.
Today's Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let us know if I missed anything in comments.
Also, The California Majority Report seems to be experimenting with a daily news roundup. They're calling it "Fresh Meat", which is best thought of as a sort of a spun "Rough and Tumble". I hope they can keep it up -- I tried to do that for a month or two in 2005, and it was brutal. Of course, CA Majority Report should be able to, y'know, pay people.
Oh, my! Check out what Nick Schou has for us in this week's OC Weekly:
Steve Sheldon isn't nearly as famous as his gay-bashing evangelical-minister dad. Most people know him simply as the son of Lou Sheldon, whose Traditional Values Coalition raises money to fight the vast gay conspiracy to undermine America but has less of a problem with sins that don't involve lube. In 2000, Sheldon the elder helped lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his Las Vegas casino clients kill federal gambling legislation. Crucial to that effort was his son Steve, a Newport Beach-based public relations consultant who in the previous decade had already taken more than $100,000 from Sin City to fight Indian gaming in California.
But along Garden Grove's Main Street-one of the last relics of small-town America in the suburban sprawl that has engulfed Orange County-Sheldon the younger is rapidly becoming a celebrity. Just not in a good way. Last October, the longtime consultant to the City of Garden Grove convinced city council to give him the exclusive right to develop a $40 million condominium project adjacent to Main Street. In approving the deal, the city sold him the land-currently a city-owned parking lot serving Main Street businesses-for just $1.5 million.
In January, the Garden Grove Downtown Business Association filed a lawsuit to stop the 100-unit condo project, alleging it violates city and state law by declaring the parking lot "blighted" and handing it to Sheldon without competitive bidding.
Hmmm, so why is America's holiest family involved in some not-so-Godly behavior? Just what is Steve Sheldon up to in Garden Grove? Follow me after the flip for more...
In Orange County, Gonzalo Mendez, a tenant farmer in Westminster, and his wife Felicitas, a native of Puerto Rico, along with a group of Mexican American World War II veterans asked a fundamental question about their communities: If we are good enough to fight and die alongside Anglos, then why are my children not good enough to attend the same schools as their children? Early in 1945, They filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against four Orange County school districts--Westminster, Santa Ana, Garden Grove and El Modena (now eastern Orange)--seeking an injunction that would order their schools' integration.
Two years later, despite organized resistance by the school districts, and because of a great deal of effort by community organizers and a tremendous amount of personal time and money expended by the Mendez family, school segregation was no more in California. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled on April 14, 1947, that school districts could not segregate on the basis of national origin--that is, that the authorities could not make children go to separate, even if equal, schools simply because they were of Mexican descent.
So 60 years ago tomorrow, segregation began to fall. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California schools could no longer discriminate based on national origin. And while it certainly did not end all state-sanctioned discrimination, it did begin a process of breaking down these barriers. This was the beginning of a new era when this state and this nation truly began to ask itself why some citizens were treated unlike the others, and why the color of someone's skin should dictate whether or not that person should be treated like a fellow human being. Let's take a moment today to remember those brave souls in orange county who took on not just school segregation, but the entire scourge of racism in California, and in America.
OK, I just noticed this on Total Buzz... But I'm not really surprised:
Coming as a surprise to absolutely no one, the Consigliere Schroeder (see also: Darth Vader, Darth Schroeder, or any Godfather reference) says Trung Nguyen will appeal the judge's decision this week that made Janet Nguyen the winner of the First District supes seat.
Mike told me that Team Trung is waiting for the transcripts from the trial in Judge Michael Brenner's court and they will then file with the state court of appeals. Perhaps the higher court will agree with the "Schroederian view" of the state recount law and maybe Team Janet shouldn't get too comfortable up on the Fifth Floor...
OK, sorry about my ranting. It's just that I live here, and I am sick and tired of these GOP Machine scumbags whine and complain about "gaming the system" when they themselves have used some VERYILLEGALTACTICS to "game the system". Unlike many of their possible victims, these GOP Machine scumbags got their day in court... And the judge ruled that there was no "gaming". Team Trung need to let it go, and allow for Central Orange County to move on.
I hope they realize that soon, and that I can stop ranting about all this crap soon.
(Clearly, Andrew and I don't agree on this one. I think that democracy is worth fighting for, even if you don't like the people involved. To me, accuracy is more important than finality. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The board is complete. The healing process begins. The unity starts now.
Mr. Nguyen ran a good race, but he should put an end to any more legal action. The county should wish Ms. Nguyen the best as she becomes the first Vietnamese-American county supervisor.
Who cares what the democrat lawyers who work for Fabian Nunez and Don Perata think? It has no force of law. The campaign is over. Schroeder needs to stand down. He is only hurting the GOP's chances of keeping this seat next year.
So why is "Been Around" on OC Blog angry at the "democrat lawyers"? Well, it looks like those "democrat lawyers who work for Fabian Nunez and Don Perata" have just contradicted Judge Brenner's ruling in favor of Janet Nguyen by opining that the County Registrar was required to use a voter verified paper trail (VVPAT) in conducting the full recount. So have these "democrat lawyers" now given new life to Trung's insane effort to overturn the election results? Follow me after the flip for more...
(Hooray, more video from yesterday! Jubal/Matt Cunningham now has VIDEO of the Judge's decision, along with VIDEO of Janet Nguyen's press conference, over at OC Blog. : ) - promoted by atdleft)
Ah, finally! No need to revise the agenda...
Janet Nguyen really will be sworn in today as the newest OC Supervisor. The wait is over... It's just too bad that the drama may not be over quite yet. (From OC Register)
Janet Nguyen will be sworn in tomorrow at the weekly Board of Supervisors meeting. Trung Nguyen ducked the many reporters at the courthouse, but his lawyer, Michael Schroeder, said he expected to file an appeal of the judge's decision.
"The judge's ruling was not a surprise," Schroeder said. "We have to take a look at the judge's ruling but I anticipate we will file an appeal."
Janet Nguyen, 30, now becomes the first Asian-American and the youngest ever to sit on the board. She told reporters she was excited, honored and relieved.
"I'm ready - I've been ready - to represent the people of the First District," she said.
Trung Nguyen refused to concede the election and didn't congratulate Janet Nguyen, who left the courthouse and promptly walked over to the county Hall of Administration. There, she was congratulated by Supervisors John Moorlach, Chris Norby and Pat Bates.
"She'll be voting tomorrow," Norby said.
Ah, if only Darth Schroeder, Lord Van Tran, and their loyal lackey Trung can just GIVE IT UP, and LET JANET SERVE FOR GAWD SAKE!! But whatever, they'll likely lose again with the appeal. I'm just relieved that this whole damn thing is coming to a close, whether they like it or not.
Republican Councilwoman Janet Nguyen of Garden Grove won the February 6th - Special Election for the 1st Supervisorial District Vacancy. The seat was previously held by Democrat Lou Correa.
Nguyen will join Republicans John Moorlach, Bill Campbell, Chris Norby and Pat Bates on the Board of Supervisors thus creating an all-Republican governing board not seen in Orange County since 2004. Nguyen also becomes the first elected Vietnamese-American Supervisor in Orange County history.
"On behalf of the Republican Party of Orange County, I would like to congratulate Supervisor-Elect Nguyen in her hard-fought victory," said County GOP Chairman Scott Baugh. "I commend the hard work of all Republican candidates that worked night and day to increase Republican registration and turnout."
"Our member communication efforts during this special election played a critical role in the effort to elect a Republican Supervisor. This Supervisorial win will help continue our positive trend in Central Orange County," said Chairman Baugh.
OK, so I guess now that Trung's done, the GOPers are getting back into good terms with Janet. I guess we'll see if all those nasty wounds will begin to heal.
This just in from Peggy Lowe at OC Register'sTotal Buzz news blog:
Could be a big day here at All-Recount-All-The-Time HQ....As Norberto reported on Friday, Team Janet's lead has slipped to just three votes as Team Trung persuaded Judge Michael Brenner to overrule ROV Neal Kelley on four ballots. Brenner has also promised a decision today. That means, of course, that we might have a swearing-in ceremony at the Board of Supes meeting tomorrow.
OK, so Crybaby Trung begged and groveled enough for the judge to reverse one of the Registrar's rulings. So now, Janet Nguyen only leads by THREE VOTES...
So will this paper-thin lead be enough to survive today's legal action...
And will the other four supervisors FINALLY ACT, and seat the Nguyen who won?
Stay tuned for more as the Great OC Political Psychodrama (hopefully) FINALLY COMES TO A CLOSE...
Here are some wild and wonderful stories from behind The Orange Curtain that you just have to see to believe:
- Irvine protesters hold out hope for peace. There may have been only 80 antiwar activists holding their candles for peace last night, but they certainly made an impact. Martin Wisckol has more in today's Register.
- How have the Vietnamese-Americans assimilated... Or have they? That's been a question that all of us behind The Orange Curtain have asked since the special election debacle began to unfold last month. Guest bloggers Ralph E. Shaffer and Walter P. Coombs have some interesting answers at The Liberal OC. And finally...
