Lawmakers debate remote hearings and night courts

During a Senate budget subcommittee hearing on Thursday, judicial branch representatives pleaded with lawmakers to allow them to continue to use remote appearances. Some senators had different ideas.

"Have we thought about expanding night court?" asked Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 Chair Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward.

While the concept might be more familiar to most people as a 1980s sitcom, night courts are still in use across much of California, particularly for traffic dockets. Wahab noted night court is available "one or two nights a week" in her district in Alameda County. Several other counties around the state offer night court a few nights a month.

Others, including Orange County, used to have night courts but discontinued them. Orange County Superior Court Presiding Judges Maria D. Hernandez made it clear she did not see night courts as the solution to her court's problems. Instead, she told Wahab that "budget restrictions" was one reason her county no longer has night courts.

Hernandez quickly changed the subject to the topic she and her colleagues really wanted to talk about: remote court appearances. Answering a question raised by Wahab and other senators, Hernandez said litigants have options if technical issues cause them to miss all or part of a remote hearing.

"There is absolutely a right to appeal directly to us in our superior court or to the court of appeal if there are issues," Hernandez said.

Tracy Kenny, deputy director of the Judicial Council's Office of Governmental Affairs, told lawmakers that remote appearances as "always optional" and that litigants are not forced to appear remotely. She touted numbers from the agency's 2022 survey finding 96% of users were satisfied with remote hearing.

"Court staff and the public are overwhelmingly satisfied with their experience using remote technology," Kenny said.

Chief Justice of California Patricia Guerrero has touted these numbers in public appearances, including figures showing there are 6,000 remote court appearances every business day in California, avoiding 1.5 million trips to court each year. Despite this success, the Legislature has not granted permanent authorization for remote appearances.

"During the pandemic the Legislature took notice of these benefits and stepped in to provide statutory authority for civil remote proceedings in 2021 and criminal proceedings in 2022," Kenny said. "But because of concerns about implementation challenges, these statutes had short sunsets that were briefly extended in trailer bill language last year."

Wahab said even the small percentage of respondents who said they were dissatisfied amounted to thousands of people. But Kenny said overall support for remote technology is remarkably high. She added that judges are not the fastest group to embrace change but have come around to supporting remote hearings.

"Before the pandemic, I think I lot of judges would have shared your hesitation," Kenny said.

There is an influential group of court staff who are not satisfied with remote appearances. Court reporters and language interpreters fear that remote technology will set conditions for them to be replaced with workers outside the state or even U.S. borders. These groups clearly hold sway with some lawmakers.

"We have had conflicted testimony," said Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles. "Really the goal is to make sure there is a record."

Durazo, who spent eight years as secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, decried figures showing there is no court reporter presents for more than three-quarters of civil cases.

"There are some really obvious issues here that need to be addressed," she said.

Courts, often led by Los Angeles County, have complained for years they cannot hire enough reporters despite offering signing bonuses and six-figure salaries.

Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers have complained this year about a lack of judges in their suburban and rural districts.

"The one thing that resonates with everyone is that they have a severe shortage of judges, especially down south in our region, and that's clogging up the courts," said Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta. "How much money does it take to run the court so they are highly efficient, so we can fund the judgeships? Is this budget just to keep us treating water?"

At an Assembly budget subcommittee hearing on Monday, Assemblyman Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale, suggested the Legislature should move some vacant judge positions from Los Angeles County to higher need areas like San Bernardino County. This drew a sharp response from the Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner, who noted the increased demands on her court.

"We continue to advocate for funding judgeships throughout the state," Judicial Council Administrative Director Shelley Curran told Seyarto. "We do continue to have the critical needs for judges throughout the state, especially for some of these areas that are growing quickly."