Government,
Judges and Judiciary,
Letters
Mar. 9, 2017
Judicial appointment statistics clarification
I write to correct portions of a recent letter to the editor, "Once again, governor's judicial appointments light on disabled, veterans" (March 2, 2017), written in response to an article from the day before, "Governor diversifies state bench" (March 1, 2017).
Evan Westrup
Press Secretary, Office of Governor Jerry Brown
I write to correct portions of a recent letter to the editor, "Once again, governor's judicial appointments light on disabled, veterans" (March 2, 2017), written in response to an article from the day before, "Governor diversifies state bench" (March 1, 2017).
First, we absolutely agree with the author of this letter that the bench should reflect California's rich diversity. Since taking office in 2011, the governor has appointed three new justices from diverse backgrounds to the California Supreme Court; the first American-Muslim and South Asian American female judges in California; the first openly gay justice to serve on the California Court of Appeal; the first African-American and Latino justices to serve in the Fifth District; the first female presiding justice to the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division Three; and many, many others. Since 2011, nearly 40 percent of appointees have been women and almost 40 percent non-white - including approximately 17 percent Latino, 11 percent African-American and 9 percent Asian-Pacific Islander. Together, these figures represent the most diverse appointments in the history of the California judiciary.
Second, regarding veterans and persons with a disability on the bench, we also agree with the author that there's more work ahead. But what's lost in his blustery missive are some basic facts and context. He points out that from 2011 through 2016, only 0.6 percent of all appointees were persons with a disability and 2.5 percent were veterans and concludes that "the appointment results for those with disabilities and veterans are poor." What he fails to disclose - despite his own work on the legislation to broaden the demographic data collected - is that the administration's judicial application was only amended in 2014 to ask applicants about veteran and disability status. This means for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 - half of the governor's time in office - there was no data collected on veteran and disability status even when veterans and persons with a disability applied and/or were appointed. Even with the addition of the question regarding veteran and disability status in 2014, the information is self-reported, so what we're left with is at best a partial snapshot of the bigger picture.
This also helps explain why of the 2,037 applicants from 2011 through 2016, only 47 identified as veterans and only 18 identified as persons with a disability. Even so, of the 65 applicants who identified as veterans and persons with a disability, 11 - or 17 percent - were appointed (9 veterans and 2 persons with a disability). This rate mirrors the overall percentage of judicial applicants appointed (356 out of 2,037 or 17 percent). Given the small sample size of applicants, had one more veteran or person with a disability been appointed - or disclosed their status - that figure would've jumped an entire percentage point to more than 18 percent appointed.
Finally, it is our hope that by shining a light on these issues - and providing basic facts - during Gov. Brown's final two years in office, we'll see even more applicants from those who served our country and those who live with a disability and even more applicants and appointees from 2011, 2012 and 2013 amending their applications to reflect their status.
Submit your own column for publication to Diana Bosetti
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com