Courts are doing more with less

By Ronald M. George
Chief Justice, California Supreme Court

George

The courts recognize that we share the obligation of doing our part to address the serious economic downturn. In the judicial branch, we have taken the initiative to reduce expenditures and to do more with less. Based on past experience, we anticipate that during these difficult times, caseloads in several categories are likely to grow. Criminal activity often rises in times of economic downturn. But many more areas are affected as well — for example, unlawful detainer actions involving both residential and commercial property, sometimes resulting from foreclosures; and petitions to modify child support — because one or both parents have lost a job or their home. Increased domestic violence and a greater need for foster care also can result from the heightened stresses now affecting many families. And courts will face the challenge of dealing effectively with the growing number of offenders who are homeless or have no access to services for mental illness or addiction.

Nor are commercial transactions exempt. Contract disputes increase as more parties cannot meet their obligations. And small claims actions, including collection activities, will proliferate. All of these matters, often fraught with heated emotions, require that the services provided by the courts be available if important issues are to be resolved in an orderly and expeditious fashion.

Serious challenges to the operation of our justice system remain. We await the determination of whether the trigger in the recently-enacted budget — based upon the receipt of federal stimulus funds — will be activated, restoring $100 million in the budget for the support of trial courts and another $71 million for new judicial positions. Failure to fill the $100 million hole in our budget would decrease the availability of services that are vital to the public and its access to the courts. It potentially could result in lay-offs and furloughs of court employees at some courts, in shortened hours of service, and inevitably in further delays in adjudicating cases. Meanwhile, as funding of our courts decreases, their workload increases — not only because of the economic downturn, but also due to legislative mandates and larger caseloads resulting from population growth.

Despite these pressures, we must continue to lay the foundation for the future by continuing the state’s substantial investment in efforts such as the ongoing development of our case management system, which will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the courts. Presently, courts and law enforcement agencies often do not have access to current information on the status of defendants — or of arrest warrants. In some courts, a judge handling a child custody dispute may not have access to information showing that the mother has obtained a protective order or that she is a defendant in a drug case. An integrated case management system is critical to our ability to provide all three branches of state government and local agencies and the public with the type of information and access that will enable the judicial system to remain accountable and effective.

I want to turn to the lack of an appropriation to fund the next installment of authorized new judgeships, a situation that is exacerbating an already critical need. In 2005, the Judicial Council sought authorization for 150 of the most critically needed judicial positions among the 350 that the National Center for State Courts recommended be created for California. Our approach was to seek 50 new judgeships in each of three successive years. The first group of 50 was authorized and funded as requested. The second set of 50 judgeships was approved in 2007, but funding has twice been delayed, most recently until July 2009. The funding for these 50 judgeships is now contingent upon reaching the trigger mark in federal stimulus funds. Contingent funds also are provided for the last 50 positions in June 2010. In the event the trigger is not pulled and these funds are not automatically restored to the budget, I urge authorization of this funding so the courts can meet the very urgent need of Californians for access to the justice system.

The gap between population and caseload growth and the number of judges continues to widen. Increases in judicial positions to match those workload increases have lagged for decades. The staggering caseloads and the emotional volatility of many of the matters brought to our overcrowded courthouses also accentuate the often insufficient security that exists in our judicial facilities, despite the best efforts of the officers and attendants who oversee them. Security standards have been agreed upon by the courts and the sheriffs, but funding to implement them has never been provided.

Providing at least a minimum level of security measures is essential if we are to ensure the public’s safety in our court facilities. Courthouses should be sanctuaries for the peaceful resolution of disputes — not crime scenes or potential battlefields. A proposal advanced by the governor would add a modest $7 increase in the court security fee to address the ongoing shortfall in funding in order to allow courts simply to maintain — not increase — existing security levels. That proposal has not yet been adopted. It would, along with a measure to contain court security costs in the future, sufficiently address this gap in funding.

Our courts also must have sufficient funding to meet our federal and state constitutional obligations to provide court-appointed counsel to criminal defendants on appeal, as well as counsel in dependency courts to protect the rights of children and parents. We also still lack the number of interpreters sufficient to meet the needs of parties and witnesses in criminal and critical civil cases.

The judiciary is continuously engaged in efforts to improve access to justice and to respond to the needs of the public we serve. The challenges faced by the judicial branch are daunting — ever-growing caseloads over which we have no control, an insufficient number of judges and staff, and crowded and unsafe courthouse facilities. And yet, during my 37 years on the bench, I have never encountered more dedication, devotion, and enthusiasm from our judicial officers and staff than I see today. As committed public servants, they are actively committed to confronting the difficult challenges that face our state today.

• This column is excerpted from the Chief Justice’s 14th Annual State of the Judiciary Address to the California Legislature on March 10.