The cost of a functioning justice system
By Ronald M. George
Chief Justice, California Supreme Court
 |
George |
A strong and independent judicial system is not just another government program,
nor is it a luxury to be afforded in good economic times and neglected when
the state’s revenues are down. Drastic reductions in resources require
courts to ration their services among those who need them. Some who look to
the court system in order to vindicate their rights simply will have to look
elsewhere — but for most there will be nowhere else to go. Government
without a functioning judicial system is not government as we know it, nor is
it the type of government that the public expects and deserves.
California’s court system — the largest in the nation, with more
than 1,600 judges, several hundred subordinate judicial officers, and about
19,000 court employees — has been working hard to meet its basic obligations
to the public and to our sister branches of government. We are continuing to
do our part in reducing expenditures wherever possible. Already, however, reductions
in court budgets have adversely affected the lives of many Californians and
threaten to render the administration of justice uneven and inadequate across
our state.
Additional reductions and continued uncertainty about the long-term financial
stability of our judicial system will negatively affect public safety. Other
consequences will fall with particular weight on many of the most vulnerable
members of society. Curtailing the services provided by the courts may be reflected
as savings on an account ledger. But such savings will be illusory, because
if court services shrink, the financial demands placed on the legislature and
the executive branch will expand for funding prisons, health and social services,
and business development. In short, cutting the courts now will result in greater
costs to government later.
An underfunded judicial system also will impede our state’s economic
recovery. If civil cases cannot be resolved in a reasonable time, or if court
services decline so that public safety and security suffer, business establishments
and individuals simply will go elsewhere.
Although the judicial system persists in efforts to provide meaningful access
to the courts, we are finding that many useful programs are being curtailed
and are in immediate jeopardy of being eliminated entirely, because of cuts
already imposed or reductions proposed for the coming fiscal year.
The consequences of such underfunding also extend to core court functions that
directly affect public safety. For example, the Vallejo and Fairfield branches
of the Solano Superior Court have a backlog of some 7,600 felony and misdemeanor
cases that need to be updated in the case management system and reported to
the California Department of Justice and the Department of Motor Vehicles. These
backlogged cases date back to the first half of 2003. In Monterey County, it
is not uncommon to have delays of four to six months in processing requests
by the district attorney’s office for copies of prior-conviction records
needed for making charging decisions under the three-strikes law and driving-while-under-the-influence
laws.
In fact, courts in every part of the state report delays in processing criminal
conviction information and in transmitting reports on convictions, warrants
and warrant clearances to the Department of Justice and DMV. Incorrect or incomplete
information increases the danger to the public. And individuals who have cleared
outstanding warrants risk being stopped, arrested and having their vehicles
impounded because of stale information.
The basic ability of courts to remain open for the people’s business
is being weakened by chronic underfunding. To provide some context for the crucial
role played by the courts in the lives of the public, I note that, according
to Presiding Judge Robert Dukes of the Los Angeles Superior Court, of the 12
million residents of Los Angeles County, one out of every two comes through
the doors of at least one of the dozens of courthouses of the Los Angeles County
Superior Court every year as a litigant, a lawyer, a witness, a juror, a member
of the public seeking information, or an employee. What other public service
or facility is used to such an extraordinary degree?
Some courts have shortened the public hours of clerks’ offices, making
it harder for individuals to file documents or obtain information. Some pressing
matters are delayed — including potential life-saving measures such as
obtaining a domestic violence or other restraining order — because long
waits for service by court users, at times extending for days, have become common.
Layoffs and staff furloughs mean fewer people available to respond to inquiries
at the desk or by telephone. In some court locations, it has become almost impossible
to get through by telephone.
Cutbacks in programs designed to assist self-represented litigants may help
courts absorb funding cuts in the short term, but these reductions result in
greater demands on staff and judicial time, because documents are not filled
out correctly and litigants do not understand their rights and cannot locate
the basic information needed to expeditiously file and process their cases.
The consequences of inadequate funding are there for all to see in many courthouses
across the state. Additional cuts will strike at the heart of an effective justice
system — not to mention the burden on court operations from increases
in costs over which the courts have little or no control, such as courthouse
security and employee salaries.
Further slowdowns in processing criminal judgments and warrants create not
only confusion — they increase the danger faced by the public. Inadequate
funding for drug courts and treatment services will shift costs to the prison
and social services systems as individuals fail to obtain the help they need.
Civil litigants — including firms doing business in California —
will be confronted with increasingly scarce court services, complicating and
delaying the resolution of their disputes.
Courts facing current financial difficulties are contemplating shutting down
civil courtrooms for part of each week — if not for part of the year.
Some courts already have shortened the end of the court day from 5 p.m. to 4
p.m., or are shutting down entirely for a half day or whole day each week. There
will be further delays in the courts as unrepresented litigants struggle to
master the legal process without the special programs designed to assist them
in vindicating their rights. Already, because of shorter and skipped court days,
trials are interrupted and spread over more days and weeks, causing greater
inconvenience and cost to jurors, witnesses, lawyers and litigants in addition
to diminishing the quality of the justice that is rendered.
Courts cannot control the number of cases filed. They cannot reach out to the
public at large to collect fees to support their operations. Collecting fees,
fines and penalties cannot be the only answer or even the primary answer. Courts
cannot and should not be expected to be financially self-sufficient. Funding
contingent upon the imposition and collection of fees, fines and penalties would
place courts in an untenable position: their existence would become dependent
upon their willingness to impose and collect financial penalties. The cost of
a functioning justice system should be paid by everyone, not simply by direct
users; all of us benefit from the fair, accessible and efficient administration
of justice.
One measure of a society is its ability to ensure public order and security
while protecting the rights of the individual, no matter how weak or powerful.
Courts stand at the forefront of this endeavor. If we abandon the goal of accessible
justice for all, we surrender not only our court system but one of the most
fundamental compacts of our democratic system of government.
This column is excerpted from the Chief Justice’s State of the
Judiciary speech to a joint session of the legislature.
|