Amending the courts bill in effort to save it

Your story about the $5 billion court construction bond bill (SB 1407) had one major error. Democrats did not remove the spending authority from the bill to win Republican support. I removed the spending authority in order to save the bill, because Assembly Republicans continued to oppose it.

I was the floor manager for SB 1407 in the State Assembly. The bill required a two-thirds vote of the Assembly to pass because it contained an appropriation. All 47 Democrats in the Assembly supported the bill, but I needed seven Republicans to vote "yes" to get to 54 votes needed for passage. When I first presented the bill it failed because Assembly Republicans refused to vote for it - a dramatic break from the usual bipartisan support for the courts. Republicans told me they refused to support the bill because they were trying to leverage their votes for concessions in the state budget and because of the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. Holding court funding hostage in order to punish the Supreme Court for a legal decision or to force a budget concession is not appropriate, of course.

To save the bill and to make sure funding is available to address public safety issues and shortages in courtroom space, I immediately amended the bill on the floor of the Assembly to remove the appropriation, thereby eliminating the need for a two-thirds vote. I then presented the bill again and it was passed by Democrats on a simple majority vote, without a single Republican vote in support. Had I not acted quickly to amend out the appropriation, the bill would have died and with it the courts' hopes for capital funding.

Members of the bench and bar should be disappointed that a bill so desperately needed to renovate our courthouses would be opposed by Republican Assemblymembers. As chair of the Judiciary Committee, I made sure that SB 1407 will deliver needed improvements to courthouses in Democratic and Republican districts and provide a needed economic stimulus. Sadly, Assembly Republicans chose to play politics with the needs of our courts at the very time our courts most need bipartisan support. I hope that next year will be a different story.

Dave Jones
Chairman, Assembly Judiciary Committee

Questioning the new president's agenda

It was quite enlightening to read of the agenda of incoming State Bar President Holly J. Fujie: "to devote her term to improving the lot of women and minority lawyers." However, her self-expressed agenda raises some interesting questions: Just where did Ms. Fujie get her mandatory MCLE one-hour unit on elimination of bias in the Legal Profession, as required by the organization she now leads? And what did she learn from it?

Jim J. Steinberg
Rancho Bernardo

Standing behind the white male perspective

Our new president, Holly Fujie, is candid, at least, when she vows in the November 2008 issue "to devote her term to improving the lot of women and minority lawyers." As a white, male member of the bar, it has been made crystal-clear that Ms. Fujie cares nothing for my situation - even though she knows nothing of my personal background or circumstances.

For Ms. Fujie, it appears that personal identity is solely defined by group membership. One can only imagine the reaction if Barack Obama, in his victory speech, had declared that he would devote his term to improving the lot of men and minorities only. Some might view that as divisively sexist and racist, don't you think? 

Stephen J. 'Jay' Riggs
Santa Ana

A waste of money

Why is the State Bar spending money fighting the case (filed by Professor Richard Sander seeking bar exam data)? We know what his conclusions will be: that affirmative action is bad, causing failure of unqualified people who were elevated beyond their capabilities. Is that point of view forbidden? Or is it part of a free exchange of ideas encouraged by the Constitution?

Marc Weissman
Foster City

Involvement = activism?

I have read with sadness the comments made in the November letters section regarding judicial activism.  These two letter writers apparently do not understand that the founding fathers knew full well that a simple majority vote of the people could well lead to no less than mob rule; thus a republic with checks and balances was formed. Imagine this opinion of "tyranny" in 1950s Mississippi if there was a vote on interracial marriage. Would they still claim "activism" if the court became involved?

Ward D. Skinner
Northridge

The will of the people

I have just read the letters from Philip W. Kell and Tulane M. Peterson railing against the Supreme Court for "fail[ing] to respect the will of the people" and its "refusal to stay their decision until the people could vote on the matter." I find myself wondering if either of them have ever heard of, much less read, Perez v. Sharp (1948 Calif. Supreme Court) and Loving v. Virginia (1968 Supreme Court). People should recall that both cases held miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional - clearly thwarting the will of the people (especially those in the South).

I can (reluctantly) accept the railings of a politician against a court "overturning the will of the people" - he probably doesn't know any better. I should think an attorney would know better.

Certainly one can disagree with the reasoning of the court - there is always a "loser" in every litigation, but please spare us the "claptrap of thwarting the will of the people."

Edward A. Trabin
Torrance