Legislature begins approving court funding cuts

Deep cuts to the court system proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in the wake of the coronavirus-related economic downturn moved a step closer to reality this week.

The Legislature has been attempting to evaluate the probable historic reductions without knowing the full picture of state tax revenues or possible federal support. The revisions include proposals by Newsom to slash $283.3 million to courts for the 2020-21 fiscal year and $2 billion in construction funding in future years.

On Wednesday, the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Public Safety, Corrections and the Judiciary voted on these proposals, unanimously passing $135 million in reductions to court funding on their agenda with little debate.

The biggest piece of this was $107.6 million to fund trial court operations. But some of the other items unanimously approved by the committee show these cuts will fall heavily on newer programs designed to modernize the courts and recent efforts to help lower income litigants.

These included $10.3 million for information technology, $6.9 million for digitizing documents, $1.2 million for court-appointed appeals counsel and $8 million to hire court navigators to assist unrepresented litigants. Several of these proposals also came with even deeper cuts that would kick in during the 2021-22 fiscal year, due to widespread indications the economy and tax revenues will not fully recover for multiple years.

The committee also approved several million dollars in cuts to Attorney General Xavier Becerra's Department of Justice. This included money for gun law enforcement, criminal databases, fraud prevention and death penalty litigation.

On Thursday, the equivalent Assembly body -- known as the Budget Subcommittee No. 5 On Public Safety -- debated many of these same ideas without voting on them. But the picture from both hearings was the same: The cuts are likely going forward.

In a presentation near the beginning of Thursday's hearing, Deputy Legislative Analyst Drew Soderborg gave more detail on where the dollars would come from. They would include $178 million in reductions from state trial courts; $15.2 million from a group of programs that includes dependency counsel, interpreters and collaborative courts; and $23 million from the pot of money that supports the Supreme Court, appellate courts and the Judicial Council.

"Given the General Fund condition of the state, we recommend approving these," Soderborg said. "However, we do recommend that the Legislature ensure that these reductions reflect its priorities. ... We would recommend that the Legislature direct that it be based on workload to ensure that courts that have more workload relative to their resources receive smaller reductions."

This approach could set off a repeat of the battles over judge positions that have occurred in the Legislature in recent years. These have often pitted wealthy urban counties, especially in the Bay Area, against fast-growing, under-served counties like Riverside and San Bernardino.

The budget news isn't all bad. It includes $273.8 million to backfill court funding to compensate for reduced fines and fee revenue. This is $238.5 million more than Newsom included in his January budget proposal.

This led to another round of a years-long debate between the members of the Legislature and court representatives who say much of this money is uncollectable. Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer Sr., D-South Los Angeles, said he first raised ideas to help the courts improve collection of this money in 2012.

"I don't know why this isn't more of a priority," he said.

"I could have the Judicial Branch send their most recent collections report if that would be helpful," replied Krystal Acierto with the Department of Finance. "I think a lot of the fines and fees are from people who really can't afford to pay anyway, so that's why there is such a large uncollected debt balance."

Acierto went on to note her department added an ability to pay proposal to the current budget. This would create a process by which debtors would have half or even more of their debt forgiven if they make payments on the rest.

Much of the debate at both hearings centered on an even bigger pot of money: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation funding. Newsom has proposed closing two prisons. But Soderborg, with the Legislative Analyst's Office, said his department has found the state could safely close up to five prisons over time, with far greater savings along the way.

Assembly Subcommittee Chair Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, chimed in that any closures would need to be carefully coordinated with efforts to modernize prison infrastructure.

"The last thing we want to do is put a new roof on a prison that is going to close six months later," Weber said.