Over-exclusion of disabled candidates at the starting gates is unacceptable

In two March 6 letters to the editor, Gov. Jerry Brown's press secretary Evan Westrup and attorney Charles Jung each praise the Brown administration for increasing judicial diversity. However, veterans and especially the disabled have largely been left behind.

I wrote and fought for the passage of the law that now requires demographic statistics be kept for those with disabilities and veterans. That bill took effect in 2014. Though progress has been made, increasing diversity for these two groups has been slow. The fault seems particularly due to the weeding out of such candidates at the initial application stage, preventing them from getting a full vetting by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE).

Westrup says we should look at the governor's own statistics before rendering an opinion. Let's do that by starting with an overview, going back to 2014. I will compare three categories of applicants: all of those who applied, minorities (using numbers for blacks, Hispanics and Asians), and veterans/disabled.

In 2014, overall an applicant had a 33.5 percent chance of being appointed, minorities had a 42 percent chance, but zero veterans/disabled were appointed.

In 2015, overall an applicant had a 31.5 percent chance of being appointed, minorities had a 33 percent chance, but zero veterans/disabled were appointed.

In 2016, overall an applicant had a 20.5 percent chance of being appointed, minorities had a 25 percent chance, but veterans/disabled lagged far behind at 9.5 percent.

The gap improved in 2017. Overall, a candidate had a 25 percent chance of appointment, minorities had a 24 percent chance of appointment, and veterans/disabled increased to 32 percent. This is a significant improvement, but for the disabled alone the percentage was 25 percent.

Although the gap narrowed significantly in 2017, there was still an alarming elimination of disabled candidates at the application phase -- seven of the eight were screened out, making the odds of going to JNE just 12.5 percent.

This process of eliminating veterans and the disabled at the application phase, and denying those applicants the ability for a full evaluation at JNE, is troublesome. The initial elimination rate of veteran and disabled candidates far exceeds that of other minority groups.

In 2014, there were 71 minority applicants. Sixty-two got to JNE, or 87 percent. There were 10 veteran applicants and three disabled applicants, but only one veteran got to JNE. No disabled made it, for a 7.5 percent overall chance.

In 2015, there were 76 minority applicants. Fifty-seven got to JNE, or 75 percent. There were 12 veteran candidates and six disabled applicants. Only one disabled candidate got to JNE, making this group's chance of getting to JNE only 5 percent -- abysmal.

In 2016, there were 69 minority candidates. Forty-nine made it to JNE, or 71 percent. There were 16 veteran and five disabled candidates. Six vets got to JNE and one disabled, for an overall 33 percent chance -- better but still far behind other minorities.

However, in 2017, while veterans did better, the disabled did terrible. There were 133 minority candidates. Fifty-three got to JNE, or 40 percent. There were 17 veterans applying and 10 made it to JNE, or 59 percent. But there were eight disabled candidates and only one was allowed to go to JNE, or 12.5 percent.

Though veteran judicial applicants are marginally improving, the continual over-exclusion of judicial candidates with disabilities right out of the starting gates is unacceptable.