Meeting challenges head-on
By Ronald M. George
Chief Justice, California Supreme Court
|
George |
This past year has been an especially busy and productive one for the Supreme
Court, and the success of the Judicial Council’s ambitious legislative
program was greatly aided by the State Bar. In addition, we welcomed Justice
Carol Corrigan to our court in January, and she has been a quick study and
active participant in the work of the court.
We continue to make progress in reducing the number of appellants in death
penalty cases who are awaiting the appointment of counsel. The court still
needs additional counsel not only for appeals, but even more so for related
habeas corpus proceedings.
The court has been able to grant some raises in the fees paid to appointed
counsel in these matters. However, during the last legislative session we were
unsuccessful in raising the statutory limit on payment for investigative expenses
in these habeas corpus proceedings, but the court will renew its request to
change the $25,000 cap to give us more flexibility in setting the reimbursement
level in these matters. I strongly urge those of you who are qualified to seek
an appointment to a death penalty appeal or habeas corpus case.
Looking ahead to the next 10 years, I am keenly aware that the progress that
the judicial branch has made in so many areas has been due to the remarkable
dedication of those on California’s bench and in its bar. But the work
of improving the administration of justice is far from done. Many challenges
lie ahead. Unrepresented litigants, particularly in family law matters, continue
to place difficult demands on the courts and we must continue to develop ways
to assist these litigants in effectively accessing the court system and vindicating
their rights.
Interpreter services continue to be a critical component of access to justice
for many Californians. The Judicial Council is committed to continuing to work
with the governor and the legislature to expand our programs to train, test,
and certify qualified interpreters for the more than 100 languages translated
each year in California’s courts. We believe the types of proceedings
in which interpreters are provided by the courts should be expanded to include,
for example, family law and small claims.
Ultimately what all of this is about is improving access and fairness in our
court system. That has been a paramount goal of the Judicial Council for more
than a decade — and it will continue to be our goal in the future. We
are committed to responding to the appropriate needs of the public, and to
providing a strong and independent judicial system.
We need the bar’s close attention in one other respect: to ensure that
California’s courts remain objective and independent. If they are not,
all these projects and plans will be mere window-dressing.
There are troubling developments on a number of levels that have the potential
to undermine the ability of courts to perform their historic and constitutional
functions. Increasingly contentious and partisan judicial elections are on
the rise.
I spoke recently on this subject at a conference held in Washington, D.C.
One of the examples I discussed was the South Dakota initiative measure that
will appear on the ballot next month entitled “Judicial Accountability
Initiative Law,” with the catchy acronym “Jail4Judges.” Upon
a finding of abuse of judicial discretion made by special grand juries, this
measure would eliminate judicial immunity for judges, subject them to possible
civil and criminal sanctions for decisions rendered in the course of their
judicial duties, and render them ineligible for judicial service during their
lifetime. (See South
Dakota measure puts judges on edge)
I could go on with other examples. For the most part, we have not yet seen
this level of inflammatory developments affecting the selection of judicial
officers in California — although I should note that the South Dakota
initiative originated with a California group that wants to pass the measure
in several small states before bringing it here. We cannot assume we are immune,
and if we ignore the trends that are testing the limits in other jurisdictions,
we do so at our own peril.
In November, the Judicial Council is convening a national conference on judicial
elections, and we anticipate it will result in a plan for action in the future.
Such a plan will look to the bar to provide collaborative assistance and strong
support to keep our courts as free as possible of inappropriate partisan politics
and influence and maintain the rule of law as a cornerstone of our democracy.
• This column was excerpted from Chief Justice Ronald George’s
State of the Judiciary address last month. The full
text is on the California Courts Web site.
|