Veterans, disabled lacking on California bench

Earlier this year, Gov. Jerry Brown's office released data on judicial appointments in 2015. The release warrants further inquiry not only into the governor's office, but also the State Bar of California and the California Supreme Court as to why the lack of disabled and veteran judicial appointees continues to be a problem in California.

A 2015 article in the San Diego Daily Transcript, "Local attorney seeks greater judicial diversity" (Aug. 26, 2015), included a quote from Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor, saying "the administration aims for a broad, experienced and diverse pool of applicants to fill a vacancy." He also said, "any conclusions reached based on the data (2014) about the number of veterans and disabled applicants appointed would be misleading because the lack of available information." Westrup further noted in a statement that "[p]ulling these stats on disability and veteran status from a very small pool [2014 applicants alone] presents a very inaccurate picture."

Those comments should be weighed against the 2015 statistics. In doing so, first recall that the governor signed Assembly Bill 1005 in 2013. AB 1005 requires data on the disabled and veterans to be included in demographic information about judicial appointments.

So what do the 2015 statistics reveal? Data released by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, aka the JNE Commission, shows that 243 people applied, including 91 females and 152 males. The governor appointed 77 people, including 28 females and 49 males. This comes to a 31.6 percent chance of being appointed just by applying. Zero disabled or veteran applicants were appointed. Only one disabled applicant made it the stage of the appointment process where he or she is rated by the commission. That applicant, who was rated "well qualified," was not appointed. No veterans made it to the JNE stage.

In total, there were eight disabled and 12 veterans who applied. Given a 31.6 percent chance of being appointed, with the combined total of 20 disabled/veterans, at least six should have been appointed. Yet only one disabled applicant even made it to the JNE Commission.

The 2014 statistics are similar. That year, 229 people applied, including 93 females and 136 males. The governor appointed 77 people, including 28 females and 49 males. This came to a 33.6 percent chance of being appointed just by applying. Zero disabled or veteran applicants were appointed. Only one veteran, who was rated "qualified" but not appointed, made it to the JNE Commission stage. No disabled applicants made it to that stage.

In total, there were three disabled and 10 veterans who applied. Given a 33.6 percent chance of being appointed, with the combined total of 13 disabled/veterans, at least four should have been appointed. Yet only one veteran applicant even made it to the JNE Commission.

Also, when you look at the makeup of sitting judges on all California state courts - trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court - the numbers are not representative. There are no reported disabled or veteran appellate justices in California in 2015. As for trial judges, there are only four reported disabled and nine reported veterans in the entire state in 2015.

We know from these statistics that people with disabilities and veterans are not being forwarded to the JNE Commission nor receiving appointments. These are facts not innuendo, and rebut the given explanations for the poor statistics.

The lack of those with disabilities and veterans being fairly considered and appointed is a matter that should be brought to the public's attention. I am a board member of National Association of Attorneys with Disabilities (http://naadattorneys.org/) and am working with NAAD president Stuart Pixely to raise awareness on disability-related issues. It is time to shine a bright light on this matter. Silence only will perpetuate the implicit bias against the disabled and veterans. I am anxious to hear what the State Bar of California, the state Supreme Court, and the governor's office have to say about this matter.