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.