Budget Sub5 — 2026-04-16 (partial)

Present.

Senator Sayarto.

Galeet.

Thank you for, good morning, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Galeet Lipa, I'm the state public defender. As you know, the office of the state public defender is an independent agency. We have about 100 people at the agency and two statutory mandates. We represent individuals who have been sentenced to death in their direct appeals. And we work to improve and support California's county-based public defense systems through training and technical assistance. I'm here today to answer any questions about our budget request, which relates directly, as was noted to increase demands to our capital appellate workload And then I present on the California public Defense workloads and staffing report as well OSPD is requesting to make permanent positions necessary to implement the Racial Justice Act. These were funded in the 2023 Budget Act for three years. That temporary funding expires this June, but what we're experiencing is that this work is ongoing and we're asking for the funding to reflect that. As this committee knows, on January 1st, 2023, those who are currently incarcerated and sentenced to death became eligible for retroactive racial justice act relief through AB 2542. Numerous studies throughout the years have demonstrated that the application of the death penalty is particularly susceptible to being influenced by race. And in most recent reports, the Habeas Corpus Resource Center noted that since January 1st, 2022, every person sentenced to death in California has been a person of color. So retroactive RJA relief in these cases is particularly impactful and can be an important step towards reducing the impact of racial bias in the application of the death penalty in California. But as you know, the RJA only creates change if there are attorneys to implement it. Without someone bringing an RJA claim before the court, no relief can be had no matter how righteous the claim. OSPD has a responsibility and recruitment to identify and litigate these RJA claims on behalf of its clients. And just for reference before I continue, in California, Capitol trials happen in superior court, but their appeal goes directly to the California Supreme Court. So when we talk about matters in the Supreme Court, that's the only appeal our clients receive. Since 2023, implementing the RJA has impacted OSPD's legal work in a couple of ways. First, OSPD currently has dozens of capital appeals pending, fully briefed before the California Supreme Court. Starting in late 2023, the California Supreme Court began ordering full RJA briefing on capital cases, including those cases that were already fully briefed. And for the most part, sort of inactive on our attorney's dockets. Those cases, those lawyers were now working on other matters, and all of those cases had to be restaffed so that those, that briefing could be underdone, undertaken, excuse me. This requires reviewing tens of thousands of pages to assess claims. If needed, to write the briefs, which can go up to 200 pages in the capital context. It requires new investigation, new research, a new understanding of the record, and it required multiple attorneys and support staff. Second, in 2024, a California Supreme Court decision required certain RJA claims be completed as writs of habeas corpus. This is a new workload for OSPD requiring Superior Court evidentiary hearings, investigations, expert witnesses, and statistical analysis that just didn't exist before. Moreover, because this requires somewhat different legal skills, we need to train our analysts and legal staff and ensure that they're proficient. Lastly, we must do all of this retroactive work in the midst of the permanent increased workload of assessing our active cases for our JA claims, which requires us to engage in new and additional legal research analysis and writing in each and every case. The written BCP goes into much more granular data about the workload impacts. I won't rehash it here, although of course I'm happy to answer any questions. I'll just add a couple of points about why this funding is both critical and reasonable. First I note that we not asking to fund a new program or new work The temporary funding period served as a pilot to prove that this was the right staffing needs for the workload demands Our tracking and analysis is that the RJA workload is adding over 11 hours of additional work a year to our staff What we're asking is that the funding and positions that are currently covering this exact work become permanent so that we can just continue to cover this workload that we cannot absorb without those additional positions. The work is not discretionary. Our clients have a constitutional and statutory right to effective counsel in their direct appeals. The state is required to provide that competent counsel, and of course OSPD must comply with legislative mandates, changes in law, and court orders. Without continued funding of these positions, OSPD will face capacity gaps in fulfilling our mandate, which creates both litigation exposures and delays in the court system, but also undermines the RJA. It will really become meaningless in an area of the legal system, the death penalty, where it is of critical import. Last, I will say that this is a modest budget amount, but an impactful one for the work. We are a small agency, meaning that small changes to our workloads have outsized impacts. It also means that small increases to our budget are particularly meaningful. As a defender officer, attorneys and in-house data specialists have allowed us to handle multiple capital RJA cases simultaneously. We currently represent the four lead cases with RJA claims before the California Supreme Court. We decrease duplication of work and handle most things in-house. We're also able to serve as a statewide RJA resource, which amplifies the benefits of the funding. I know that there are many competing priorities coming before this committee this year. I'll just say this is a modest and narrow BCP to continue funding positions which are doing necessary work. It's grounded in multiple years of workload data and ensures that California meets its own constitutional and statutory obligations in the highest stakes cases in the system where there's an overwhelming need to drive out a history of racial bias. So I'll stop there, take any questions, or I can move on to the second matter. Thank you very much.

Drew Soderbergh, Legislative Analyst's Office, just here to provide answers to questions as needed.

Victoria Chin, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add here, just answering questions.

Thank you. The data request from CPRA, they jumped from three in 2020 to a projected 170 in 2025. So if you could tell me a little bit more about what that means to you or should mean to us, What does that volume tell us about the scope of the claims? What types of data are being requested?

The request that you're making is for attorneys, though, right? Six additional attorneys?

So your request will fulfill the need?

And of the cases where supplemental briefs were filed, what kind of racial bias has been identified?

And when you identified that, help with the case?

Okay. That's it. Thank you very much, and thank you for all of the work that you do.

Thank you, Senator Durazzo.

Yes, thank you. So we represent people on a... meaning that they have at the county level, the public defender office represents people at their trial. When they are first charged and arrested, people are brought into court. They are presumed innocent. They have the right to trial. Witnesses are brought in. There's sort of what we see on TV, hopefully with a jury and a trial. That is done at the county level by the public defender office or by the attorneys who are contracted to serve that role at the trial level. If people are convicted, they have the right to an appeal to see if any mistakes were made during that initial trial process. An appeal is confined to the record, meaning you can really look at what happened. You can read and hear what happened at the trial and see if mistakes in law were made. And our office represents people who were sentenced to death in that second phase on appeal to check if mistakes were made and to ensure that justice is done fully. That is often a very long process. In capital cases, appeals can take a decade for a variety of reasons.

All right, seeing no further questions with anyone, we'll move on to issue number two.

Issue number, just one moment. Issue number two is the California Public Defense Workloads and Staffing. We are joined again by Ms. Lippa, the state public defender. Please go forward.

Thank you. Senator Durazo.

I don't have a number for you, in part because right now it is such a county-by-county matter. People get paid differently. Offices work differently. We don't have that number. There is many states who have undergone this process, have done phased rolling implementation, taking a period of five, seven, even ten years to reach certain goals, thus growing in a modest way with funding being slowly brought into the system. But I don't have a number for you today.

Yes, I think that is that, again, with the AB 625 report and the work that has been done around it, this attention to how a phased process of change could occur is something that many folks are working on and could certainly be brought as a proposal on a statewide basis

Thank you Senator DeRazzo Ms. Lippin I have a few questions number one the report notes that there's a lack of staffing that can lead to the underuse of alternative programs such as collaborative courts Can you elaborate on this impact?

Thank you. Can you also talk a little bit about the impact of the recent policy changes, for example, of Prop 36, which may have not been captured in your report as of yet?

Thank you. And also, I was remissed in issue number one. You had mentioned that all of the sentencing had been to people of color. If you could provide us a little more detail on that.

I mean, in writing.

OK, thank you. Did I miss asking for the LAO? Any comments? I think I did on the issue number two. I'm sorry, I'm on overload of DayQual and everything else, so you'll have to excuse me. Yes.

Thank you. And Department of Finance.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. All right, that concludes issue number two. We're now going to move on to issue number three, which is legal aid funding. We are joined by the following panelists. We have before us Lauren Klein, Director of Advocacy for Legal Aid of Association of California. My favorite presiding judge, Judge Sergio Tapia II. He's the presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. And then we also have Kate Marr, Executive Director of Community Legal Aid of Southern California. Tessie Soloronzo, Executive Director of the Inland Empire County's Legal Services. And then, I don't know, pardon, Siobhan Waldron, Managing Attorney for the Immigrant Legal Defense Fund. Thank you, all of you. We have a great panel before us today. All right, with that, I'm going to start with Ms. Klein.

Good morning, Senator Durazo.

And now for the judge of California, Mr. Tapia.

Thank you. Now you know why he's my favorite. Next, we're going to have Ms. Kate Marr.

Civil legal aid helps survivors act fast to get protection, stabilize housing, and keep children connected to school and care. I have another client story for you. We had a mother who fled severe domestic violence with her four children, and she reached a confidential shelter, but her abuser was able to track her down, forcing the family to relocate again. Her request for a restraining order was denied initially, leaving them at continued risk and making housing stability even harder. Through our shelter partnership, we helped her appeal and present updated evidence. The court ultimately granted a three-year restraining order, and it was an essential step towards safety and housing stability. So in closing, I just want to repeat again, legal aid is a proven cost-effective intervention. When the state invests in legal services, we prevent avoidable evictions, help survivors reach safety faster, and reduce the higher costs that otherwise fall on shelters, emergency rooms, courts, and schools. And as you weigh very difficult budget decisions in a difficult budget year, I urge you to restore and sustain civil legal aid funding so that California's safety net works as intended. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I'm happy to take questions later.

Good morning. Thank you so much for this opportunity. My name is Tessie Solorzano and I am the Executive Director at Inland County's Legal Services. I'm here to share what civil aid looks like on the ground, including some impactful client stories, as well as the one-time investments made on behalf of the California Access to Justice Commission for specific projects. So first, for a bit of background, Inland Counties Legal Services is a nonprofit organization founded in 1958 that provides free civil legal services to persons with low income and seniors age 60 and over throughout Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Yes, end-to-end frontier to more urban areas, that is our joy, to be able to provide civil legal services there. Our attorneys and advocates help residents with housing rights, consumer protections, family law, senior legal issues, access to health care and public benefits, and others. We use a holistic intake process so that when a family comes to us with one civil legal issue, we are able to triage, identify what the family truly needs to be able to be stable in their housing, in their income, in their benefits, to feel safety in their home, and provide that wraparound service to the individual and to the families. Now, Lauren referenced our homeless prevention funding, And I wanted to share a really impactful story for an individual that came to us back in 2022. This was made possible through our homelessness prevention funding, and in particular, a special partnership that we were able to have with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. This individual is a 61-year-old homeless man, a veteran, who needed assistance applying for SSI and SSDI. Through our assistance, through our advocacy, through the connection and partnership made possible through that homelessness prevention funding the individual was ultimately approved for SSDI benefits in monthly as well as a retroactive benefits of a life amount of This person went from being unhoused, a veteran, a senior, to being able to stabilize, identify housing, be able to provide for himself. And that is just one example of the many that has also been shared by the team in terms of homelessness prevention and the impact. Now, LAC reports that State Bar-funded legal aid organizations recovered nearly $544 million for clients in 2024 and obtained almost $350 million more in debt reduction and avoided costs. And this is even while turning away large numbers of eligible clients due to a lack of capacity. Now, Judge Tapia had referenced eviction and homelessness, and legal aid is truly homelessness prevention. We recently had a senior, 76 years old, who was facing an $80 rent increase. Reasonable in terms of the landlord and other protections. However, the housing authority was refusing to allow that $80 increase so that way she could remain housed, stay close to her family networks, as well as her medical providers. So in this situation, Inland County Legal Services was able to go advocate on behalf of that client, see it as a reasonable accommodation and get that $80 increase approved as a reasonable accommodation for that 76 year old senior. Had it not been for us, she would have unfortunately gone through the eviction process with a 90 day notice that had already been served. Legal aid truly is homelessness prevention. Now, this work is not possible without the dedication of talented attorneys, paralegals, and frontline staff. And it is truly an honor to be able to also represent the California Access to Justice Commission that I'm a commissioner of, to be able to make these one-time asks as the commission truly focuses on supporting legal aid infrastructure and organization in particular. So for 30 years, the California Access to Justice Commission has been one of the state's most important tools for responding to the justice crisis by expanding legal resources, removing barriers, and supporting innovation. There are three targeted asks from the California Access to Justice Commission. The first is legal aid loan repayment assistance, in particular providing that safety net for new legal aid attorneys who might lose federal public service loan forgiveness under federal rules. Now, without the support, uncertainty about student loan relief will drive talented advocates out of legal aid at the very moment when California's justice gap is widening. There are 5,000 income-eligible Californians for every one legal aid attorney in our state. This is the data from 2023, which is astounding. 30% of new attorneys to civil legal aid leave within three years. 92% of them may leave within two years. Recruitment and retention is a true challenge, particularly as expertise is required to be able to litigate these cases, complexity of which knows no limits in terms of income, and it is imperative to be able to retain our talented staff. The second request is the assistance for immigrant parents across the state and pre-authorization for caregivers through a project under AB 495, the Family Preparedness Act of 2025, so that that way law libraries and pro bono attorneys are able to provide the assistance to families that may come into law libraries And part of this model is particularly unique It is important to be able to reach civil legal services in the community that you live in and participate in Not everybody can access things virtually particularly in a rural situation. So a law library does become a fountain for connection and to be able to receive the assistance and guidance that you may need. This particular request would go directly towards that, to stabilizing families and ensuring that sudden detention or deportation It doesn't mean a child loses access to school, medico, or a stable home. And then the third one is an additional $5 million for the Legal Aid Innovation Structure Grants, which is an expansion of current innovation and infrastructure grants. ICLS was able to receive one of these grants previously. And so just to share an example of the key work that is supported by these grants, we created a self-help video library, and it launched last year. Since then, we've had over 7,000 views of our videos, the highest ones being child support and family law in particular. These types of innovation grants are generally unachievable without these types of special supports. And in particularly at a time when folks are unfortunately concerned about going out into the community to receive direct legal services, at least they're able to do it virtually or receive self-help through these video online libraries. Again, just as an example. Now, you've heard from our colleagues regarding the return on investment for communities. These are real dollars kept in households throughout Riverside, San Bernardino counties, as well as throughout the state. These are dollars that help pay rent, keep lights on, and support local businesses instead of being lost to fraud, illegal evictions, or bureaucratic errors. Inland County's legal services, these on the daily, how targeted legal help can stabilize a family and protect public investments. When we stop an unlawful eviction, we also avoid the cost of shelter, emergency room visits, and school disruption. When we help a senior straighten out a Medicare or Medi-Cal problem, we prevent more expensive crises down the line. When we help a small business resolve a contract or licensing issue, we preserve jobs, local tax revenue, and help uplift somebody to creating their own business and being empowered. It is incredible work, and I thank you again for the opportunity to speak today and welcome any questions.

Thank you and good morning, Chair Richardson and Senator Nthurasso. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today about why funding legal representation for families with a loved one in immigration detention is not only the right thing to do, but also a smart budget decision for this state. When a person is detained, the harm does not stop with that individual. Very often, the people that are left behind are U.S. citizen spouses, children, parents, and entire communities who suddenly lose a caregiver, a breadwinner, a transportation provider, and an emotional anchor. Immigration detention is not just one person's crisis. For example, our office represents Marta and Javier, who were taken by ICE in Southern California while working last year, leaving behind their four U.S. citizen children ages 9 to 22 years old. Their 22-year-old son suffers from very serious mental health issues, and their 19-year-old daughter had to quit her nursing studies and begin working to try and pay the bills and care for the family. Their 16-year-old daughter also had to start working to try and keep the household afloat and make rent. Marta and Javier's 9-year-old son was struggling, and his school wanted to move forward with an IEP to address his needs, but they couldn't due to the absence of a legal guardian. We represented each Marta and Javier in filing a habeas petition and in their subsequent bond hearings that were ordered by the district court. After three months of detention, Fortunately, they were reunited with their children and the children could return to focus on their studies and the family found stability. But without counsel, they would have been swiftly deported and the family permanently separated. There is a moral reason for investment in representation of individuals detained by ICE. No child should lose the stability, safety, or the support of a parent because that parent is forced to navigate one of the country's most complex legal systems alone simply because they couldn't afford an attorney. And similarly, no person should face prolonged detention and separation from their family and community simply because they couldn't afford an attorney. And this is not only a moral issue. It's a practical and economic one. When a detained parent or spouse unnecessarily loses their immigration case because they had no help, the costs don't disappear. They just shift. Rent and bills go unpaid. Children need more school-based supports. Families who were previously self-supporting can become dependent on public benefits and overstretched nonprofit systems. There are significant downstream costs. So in other words, when representation is missing on the front end, the state often pays more on the back end. A modest investment in counsel can prevent far more expensive state interventions later. And importantly, representation does not mean special treatment. It means meaningful access to justice. It means decisions are made on the merits when the facts are properly presented by an attorney. Representation helps bring fairness, due process, and clarity to an otherwise chaotic and terrifying process. If this committee is looking for investments that both reflect compassion and fiscal responsibility, Funding detained immigrant representation should be very high on the list. So I urge you to continue to fund representation for families and communities impacted by ICE detention. Thank you very much.

Senator Durazo. Thank you. You are all my heroes. I just love, you know, just appreciate all that you do every day. It's so important. Our favorite judge, Judge Tapia. Thank you so much for the work around the evictions and the eviction data. Yeah. I'm just, if you can describe a little bit more how the courts have improved the data collection over time, specifically the eviction data.

I assume when I ask you about what potential barriers or what barriers you faced, funding is one of those. Anything else or what would you identify that made it difficult?

Is there anything that you learned or done that has helped the court operations be more successful?

And have you found ways to share that beyond, in your case, the LA County with other counties or the other courts?

That's great, and I would hope that other counties would take advantage of the help that you could give, or the lessons that you learned, share them, whatever practices, systems.

They can come up? Okay. Yeah, I just want, I have a couple of questions for you all, but I have another list of questions that I hope I could give to you and then you could respond another day. Can you describe the tasks required to produce data on civil case filings?

Good morning, Senators. Zlatko Theodorovich from the Judicial Council. I don't think we'll be able to answer to your questions. I will most definitely take them back and come back to the committee with responses.

The first question I don have detail on how the steps are for data collection The second one is about what are your most recent cost estimates for modernizing the Superior Court system and how would efforts to modernize support the efforts to collect civil case filings? So you have those verbally.

And I just have for legal aid, I think you all made an incredible presentation here as to prevention of homelessness. Research indicates that people with legal counsel are five times more likely to obtain the protections they're eligible for than those without a lawyer. With federal immigration rates elevated, what's the current demand for immigration legal services? and for deportation defense. I know you made reference to that.

For our office, I can speak. For Immigrant Legal Defense, the demand is through the roof. It is absolutely through the roof. We provide a lot of services, and we do everything we can, but we, of course, can't represent everyone. And as the data presented by my colleagues show earlier, there's not enough attorneys to meet the need in the community. But as you mentioned, the raids, the enforcement is off the charts. Therefore, the need is off the charts. And no, we cannot currently meet it. And I would just add to that that it's not only new demand for services, but cases that seemed simple in earlier times have become much more complex and are taking a lot more work and energy and time.

I'm sorry, Senator. I also have a bit to add as well. Just at least in terms of statistically, there is one attorney for every approximately 50,000 to 55,000 individuals that are in need of immigration assistance. So that statistic is much more dire than the earlier one that I had referenced. But additionally, it is taking a lot of staff time, not just because of the increased need, but also the increased need for oversight and attendance at what used to be routine visits are now requiring attorneys to be present, not just for the client to ensure their safety and security, but as well if they are unfortunately detained or removed during that just used to be routine check-in. That's partially what you mean by the more complicated.

I don't have an exact number that I can give you. I can tell you that the State Bar of California just conducted a justice gap study, a legal needs study, which found that statewide more than 80 percent of people don't get adequate legal assistance for their problems. Some of their problem goes unmet. So I can tell you that the investments that we're requesting today would not come close to touching the gap itself. It would make a big difference, but the gap remains very large. Okay.

Appreciate you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

A couple questions and requests. One, if you could provide to my office the info of what you're going to be doing, the program in Compton, so I can read about it and also share it with the community. Thank you. Number two, I'm going to give you a little homework. For legal aid, if you could provide for us a list of all the services that you provide. And if you would also, if you could do an overlap map of where your locations are according to our Senate districts. So we could provide to the senators to say, here are the services that are offered. Here are the locations in your district. So you can share this with your constituents. That's the deal I'm going to make. Then, because of that, we need to find some money. And you should know, probably one of the most important people in the building are the staff, because I think Nora sets me up sometimes. She puts things before us to educate us, and then I go, I'm listening, and then she knows my next question is going to be, well, can we take money from here to here? So it's really important to work with the staff and our consultants. If you don't know that, that's a very important key. So I want to build on the question that Senator Durazo had, and I heard a couple amounts mentioned. What is the amount of money that you're requesting?

Fifty? Five.

So we do have quite a lot of funding related to homelessness.

Sure. Okay. In terms of how the dollars are used, the Equal Access Fund distributes funds by a formula based on poverty population. So the funding goes all over the state to every county based on how many low-income people are there. So that's how the funding gets used. In terms of where we got that $50 million number, another very primary source of funding for legal aid is IOLTA, which stands for Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts. The legislature created this system. The legislature doesn't fund it directly. Essentially, any funds that a lawyer puts in a trust account for a client, the interest that is generated goes to legal aid. That amount is obviously volatile. It depends on interest rates. We anticipate that over the next two years, IOLTA will drop by $50 million, which is how we came to that number. Because, as I said, the gap is much, much larger than that. So is that in two years or is that now?

Over the course of two years, we anticipate that IOLTA funds will drop $50 million.

Yes. All the organizations that are funded by the Equal Access Fund also receive IOLTA funding.

So what do you need though now I mean you anticipating this is going to go down but is your number now 50 or you just projecting what you expect you going to need This is how we can Tell me the truth

Okay.

That would depend on each individual organization. I don't know if the organization's present can share. Both of our, Tessie and myself, both of our organizations do provide support around family law issues. Okay.

And our office also runs the Compton Self-Help Center where we do a lot of that work.

And were you previously receiving federal funding? And if so, has that gone down at all?

very many of those organizations have lost federal funding sources in the past two years, or they have had sources that suddenly don't cover the types of services that they used to cover. So yes, the answer is yes, loss in federal funding is huge.

It's hard to arrive at a specific number, although we have attempted to do so because so many things remain in flux. There's litigation challenging many funding cuts. But we anticipate that or we estimate that it's somewhere in the ballpark of $160 million just in the first year of the Trump presidency that was lost for legal aid organizations in California.

Our office is located in Oakland, but we provide services statewide. So specifically, two of our major programs are one where we serve nine different California State University campuses, providing free services to staff, student, and faculty there. And also we serve community colleges throughout the state, and we have a lot of other programs, but we reach nearly every county.

I get questions. I'm a part of the Legislative Black Caucus, and I get a lot of questions about our chair in particular mentions about some of the individuals from African countries and so on. The diaspora, Haitia, we have a lot in Los Angeles, Ethiopian, my district in Carson, we have a lot of Nigerian.

We provide a lot of community education aside from the specific projects I mentioned for example So of course through the schools people that are accessing schools we don only serve students but also faculty staff and families So that is a big way all types of ethnic groups and communities access community colleges throughout the state of California. So that's one way we reach all different types of populations. But also we provide a lot of community education, webinars, other informational seminars. And we also do a significant amount of mentoring. So we work to mentor attorneys throughout the state, particularly in underserved areas like the Central Valley, the Central Coast. And through our very kind of different reaches in the community, we serve people all throughout the globe. Our data does reflect that we serve the demographics of California. But, of course, our services aren't limited to any certain ethnic group. And we have access to interpretation in any language on demand. And so language access isn't an issue for accessing our services.

Yeah. Gladly.

Seeing no further questions, that's going to conclude our issue number three. We really appreciate all of you coming, and we'll certainly be following up.

All right, now we're going to turn to issue number four. Mr. Z, you get to stay here. That is our judicial branch overview. We're going to be joined today by the following panelists. Ms. Michelle Coran, Administrative Director of the Judicial Council of California, Judge Ann Moorman, we've seen you before. Presiding judge of the Superior Court and also Ms. Kate Becker, Becker? Becker? Becker? Okay, thank you. Executive Officer of the Superior Court of Ventura County and Chair of the Court of Executives. We have Mr. Z here, who's our Budget Extraordinaire Service Director of Judicial Council of California. And then now we have returning back our LAO representatives, Mr. Zoddeberg, and then our two from Department of Finance, Mr. Mark Jimenez and Henry Ning. We will start with the Judicial Council. Please go forward. It's nice to see you. Yes, you too. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Durazo, it's nice to see you.

Why is Shelley not Michelle?

All right, good morning, Madam Chair. As Ms. Curran noted, I'm Ann Moorman. I'm a security court judge of Mendocino County, and I am also chair of the Judicial Branch Budget Committee, and thank you for having us here today. On behalf of the branch, we want to express our appreciation for the legislature's continued support for trial court funding. We are encouraged that the governor's budget includes essential investments to address rising operational costs, ensuring and strengthening representation of indigent parties at the appellate level, reducing appellate court backlogs, and advancing critical courthouse projects. As such, we do support the budget as proposed. As noted by Ms. Curran and in the materials associated with the agenda, The budget includes a $70 million allocation to help courts manage increased operating expenses, such as salaries, benefits, supplies, equipment, and other necessary features of running a courthouse. I would like to note that due to external forces, many of those international, we are seeing severe supply chain disruptions that impact our ability to procure basic equipment and supplies at any sort of reasonable cost, particularly things like computers, copiers, anything with a semiconductor chip. Those costs are rising. They're not predicted to abate any time soon. This is just one example. Every year, our janitorial costs rise due to inflation, as do other essential features of running our courthouses and the services we provide. The $70 million in the governor's budget is vital to offset some of these rising costs so we can avoid reductions to core programs. This funding is all the more necessary in light of the ongoing $55 million reduction to the trial courts from fiscal year 24 and 25. The governor's budget also proposes, as Ms. Curran mentioned, $21.7 million to cover increasing employee health and retirement costs. As you know, these costs are also rising, consistent with the statewide trends. Every trial court, all 58 courts, have to provide contributions for retirement purposes and to supplement or cover health care costs, health insurance, and the like. Whether the court is in a 37-act county or a CalPERS county or has a private program, our retirement contributions have been increasing. I will speak to my own county that due to decisions made by the county, they incurred some debt through bond to cover potential insolvency of the retirement program for county employees that retirement program court employees are members of. So in addition to covering increased cost contributions, we had to cover our portion of the debt-related funding incurred to preserve the solvency of the retirement program. That has taken a very serious hit for us. We very much appreciate the $21.7 million that's in the budget, and we appreciate that the support, because it's been ongoing as an annual adjustment, It is part of the stable and predictable funding that the trial courts really require. Trial courts are the fundamental to every Californian's access to justice. We are the place where the constitutional rights of all Californians are protected and preserved. We very much appreciate this committee's interest in our work. We do support the budget because we believe it will allow us to continue unabated in serving this important role. and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any comments from the LAO's office? No? Department of Finance? No. Did you want to testify?

Senator DeRazzo?

Senator Drazos, Lacko Theodrovich from the Judicial Council. Regarding funding, and obviously there is always a need for additional interpreter resources, but we are bound by the funding that we have made available in the annual budget. We've had the ability to have some savings during the pandemic that we've accumulated and supplemented the amounts that with your support and administration's support. But those funds are expected to run out pretty much next year. So we have funding for this year and some amount available for next year to address costs. But then it does become a matter of fiscal management at the court level as to what they can do to provide those services while balancing all the other needs of the courts. And again, we have folks here who can speak to what it means at the court level. But we are concerned, we are working on it in terms of trying to manage the resources that we have and support language access in the courts. We also have a process with our, you know, at least once if not more during the course of the fiscal year of collecting the data from the various courts about their use of their allocated interpreter funding. So, you know, one of the things I think I'm most proud of is that we collect that data. It's very reliable. Courts that aren't anticipating using their full allocation, that gets rerouted to trial courts in different counties that have a greater need, at least in that particular year. So we have a reallocation methodology that we use every year to try to, you know, the needs go like this, like everything else, to try to meet the needs for those courts that interpreter needs have escalated. because in some years they're lower in other counties.

And it is the other languages that are the hiring issues. So for Ventura specifically, we have a dialect of Mixteco. And there are many, many cases that need a Mixteco interpreter. And they are not staff interpreters. So we are hiring contractors. We have nine Spanish-speaking employees, but it's the other languages that become the harder to hire as employees. So we certainly go outside. We actually have one recruitment for a mixed echo now, but they are difficult to hire as employees. Spanish is the easier to hire as an employee, but it's the other languages that become challenging.

Employees versus contractors.

Some of it is the benefit for them for their own schedule. They don't want to maybe work Monday through Friday schedule that we would like them to have as an employee. And some is just there might not be enough of a need to have a full-time mixed echo. We definitely need one. But it's a little bit of balancing the need of how many you might have on staff. And my understanding is many of them just don't want to do a full-time employment at a court. They'd rather do their own contracting.

You're saying there are not enough interpreters?

This is a very important issue for the Judicial Council and for the trial courts. It's imperative that when someone comes to court, they understand what is going on and that language should not be a barrier to that understanding. So we are committed to continue to work and do everything we can. As Zlatko mentioned, the New York Passer work that we have done, I think, has been effective. We're committed to continuing that work.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. A couple questions. You all mentioned that we did have a hearing on February 26th regarding the facilities. My question is, have you been able to provide the feedback from this committee to the Chief Justice and adjust your May revision numbers based upon that hearing.

And I understand I've worked in the federal government, I've worked in the state government. I know you submit and they say what is okay, and you say that that's what's okay. But it's not okay. And that's what we talked about on the February 26 hearing. So my question is, and I'm going to restate it, have we submitted to the governor's office the concerns that have been brought forward in the February 26 hearing that the money that we're talking about, if we were to continue at that level, we'd never address the courthouse construction needs that we have. Neither would we be able to address ultimately the repairs and all that. So my question is, have we shared with the Department of Finance, we understand this is the budget. You're grateful for that. But have you given them the bigger picture of what's needed ultimately to be considered?

So I hate to put you on the spot, but it's your job. What are the needs?

Okay. What I'm going to ask is, Mr. Z, would you please provide to the governor's staff the discussion that we had related to February 26th?

The reason why I'm insisting that they're going to share with you and copy to the committee what I'm requesting is when we ultimately, the pro tem, the speaker, and the governor have discussions about funding, everyone needs to be on the same page. So we understand this is the basic kind of what we're doing, putting the Band-Aid on, that we're using with the budget, but I need to make sure that the governor and the Department of Finance are aware of really the broader need that we are facing that we must begin to address if not beginning this year, next year, certain years, because many of these courthouses are 80 years old, 70 years old, and $100 million isn't going to do it. We may very well need to look at some other creative financing, broader financing, to be able to address some of these needs. So I'm asking that you would please share that with the governor's staff. I think we, do we have someone here from the governor's staff? I think I've seen you before.

Yes, if you would, please. And what I'm just hoping to do, I realize that the Governor, we're not authorizing $22 billion today. I get that. But we do need to make sure that our reports are accurately reflecting what the outstanding need is. This may be what we're accepting and what we have today, but that doesn't mean that this need doesn't exist out here. And at some point, we have to start talking about it. And just kicking the can down the road and throwing $100 million, $200 million is not a satisfactory budget, frankly, for the needs that the courthouse has. It's what we're grateful we have, but it does not mean that it is going to meet the needs. So yes I would like a copy because I want to make sure we all on the same page Because through this committee I hoping to bring forward some suggestions of what we can do to do maybe a broader response So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. And I have a copy. I can give it to you after the hearing. Okay, that would be perfect. That being said, I also noticed in the document that we reference judges, and it does not mention judges in the Inland Empire, Riverside, San Bernardino, and so on. So we had a previous meeting in preparation for this meeting, And I just want to make sure if I can get an updated document that reflects what the needs are, for example, in Riverside and San Bernardino, and how by either providing this money or additional money, we will be able to meet the needs there because they're not listed in this summary document that I have today.

Okay, so I need to make sure that because all these decisions are happening now, so we need to make sure we may not have final numbers, but to the best that we can provide, if you could provide it to the committee, to the governor's office, so that way if other suggestions are brought forward, which we would certainly hope they would be, right, that they know where we're hoping this goes to so it's not just something goes out there and then we're, well, how do we spend it? We know what we need to do, and I'm willing to fight to help you, but I want to make sure it's going where it should go. And with that, I also wanted to extend to Senator Durazzo. I had previously requested on February 26th better understanding the formula. If you notice the locations, and I'm talking about page 11 in our report, I asked to have a better understanding of the formula of how locations are determined, whether we're including populations, where we're including number of cases, and so on. So we now have received that information. We're going to schedule with our consultant a little workshop where we're going to go through to understand the formula that you currently utilize. So we probably will have subsequent questions about how we can make sure that funding is really going to the greatest need at this time for the limited resources that we have. Okay. So we may be calling on you to I may be calling for a lifeline phone call as we review the formula for you to clarify what it is that we're reading. because we do want to come out of this committee with some specific recommendations to make sure that Californians are being helped. Thank you for that, and thank you for your continued interest and support in the needs of the judicial branch. We really appreciate that Okay thank you And tell the judge it wouldn hurt for her to send a little note as well to the governor restating not only these current needs but her broader needs that she sees Okay, thank you. All right, any further questions? All right, with that, that finishes issue number four. Issue number five is the continuation of the courts of appeal workload. We're joined today by Justice Lori Earle, the Administrative Presiding Justice. Mr. Z is staying here. And then we have our same representatives from the LAO and the Department of Finance. We will start with you, Justice Earle. Thank you, Senator Richardson, Senator Durazzo, for the opportunity to speak with you today and maybe to offer some friendly competition with Judge Tapia on favorite presiding judge. I don't know. I understand. I'm just across the street. It's like your second home, though. So maybe I can start at the second favorite and earn my way up. There you go. There you go. I would like to start, the branch would like to start by just expressing gratitude for the governor and the Department of Finance for recognizing the urgent workload needs of the courts of appeal and for including related staffing support in the proposed state budget. It certainly, in our opinion, demonstrates a strong commitment to upholding timely and accessible justice for California. The Judicial Council is requesting funding for 18 positions and associated resources to support the courts of appeal. Specifically, this proposal includes $5.2 million from the Appellate Court Trust Fund in fiscal year 2026 through 2027, followed by $4.9 million general fund ongoing beginning in fiscal year 2728. These positions are not new. They are currently supported through limited term funding from the appellate court trust fund that was first provided in fiscal year 2324 with subsequent allocations in the next two fiscal years. And that support has been critical in helping courts manage existing workload pressures and prevent even greater delays. However, this funding is temporary and it is set to expire on June 30th of this year. As that expiration approaches, the underlying workload challenge has not eased. In fact, the courts of appeal continue to experience steady increases in pending appeals, fully brief cases awaiting decision, and new filings entering the system. And in our opinion, this reflects not a short-term fluctuation, but a sustained and structural level of demand on the appellate courts. What that means in practical terms is that even under ideal conditions where records are complete, briefing is timely, oral argument is streamlined, and cases proceed without interruption, appeal still requires significant judicial time and attention. and each case moves through the multiple stages of careful review, analysis, and written decision-making. But when staffing is limited, as you've reflected yourself the importance of our staff to support us, there is no way to shortcut the process of these appeals, making them way through the system without extending timelines. And over time, That pressure shows up as backlog, and once that backlog builds, it becomes increasingly difficult to reduce without additional stable resources. This is particularly important because appellate delay has real consequences. For litigants, it means longer wait times for final resolution, whether they are victims seeking closure, families seeking stability or businesses seeking certainty, or individuals seeking clarity in the law. The impact is felt well beyond the courtroom. The courts of appeal are also facing increasing complexity in their caseloads. Changes in the law like mental health diversion, the Racial Justice Act, and other sentencing reforms, voter-approved initiatives, and more sophisticated appellate advocacy have all contributed to a more demanding environment. And the result is that cases are not only more numerous, but more complex and time-sensitive to resolve. So against this backdrop, we are requesting a transition from temporary to permanent support. The proposal provides a bridge year of funding through the appellate court trust fund in fiscal year 26-27 to maintain continuity, followed by ongoing general fund support beginning in fiscal year 27-28. This structure ensures there is no gap in staffing, no loss of capacity, and no disruption to ongoing case processing. The request, in our opinion, is really about stability. It recognizes that the workload that we are managing is not temporary, and therefore the resources supporting them should not be temporary either. By converting these positions to ongoing funding, the state ensures the courts can continue addressing backlog, managing current filings, and preventing further delays. So, in short, we see this proposal is a targeted and practical investment in the efficiency and reliability of our appellate courts. And I'm happy to take any of your questions on that issue. Answer questions. I'm just here to support the committee and our branch request. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Senator DeRosso. Thank you. Thank you very much, Justice Earl, for the information, for being here with us. The notices of appeal have grown by 42% in the last five years. That's the information I have. And I know you mentioned some of these things, but if you could just summarize what's driving the growth, and, you know, will those just be temporary, ongoing? Do you think it'll stabilize at any one point? I imagine Prop 36 might have an impact, but I'd rather hear it from you. Yeah, I think it depends on what district you sit in. So my district is the third district, which is down to Mono County up to the border, but I don't have the coastal communities. And 70% of our caseload is criminal. That may be different for, like, the 6th District over in Santa Clara. They have a higher civil caseload than we do. And for us here, because the legislature is very active, we see a lot of cases hitting our desk now. It was felony resentencing when the law regarding murder changed. We still see those coming through, not in abundance like we did, but now what's hitting our desk is the mental health diversion cases, the Racial Justice Act cases So it depends on I think where you sit And for my county it criminal Do you see it at any point using your lens as stabilizing Do you think there's certain factors that are, you know, going to keep it growing? You know, I think with, in my humble opinion, with the legislature that is looking at justice in the lens of sentence reform and other changes to criminal law. I think that there's a steady diet of that coming through. I think we are just starting to see the Racial Justice Act cases. I think the trial courts are all seeing them, and it's hitting them pretty hard. I think the appellate courts are just starting to see those, and I think there's a lot of law to decipher. I think it's a pretty meaty. The Racial Justice Act will keep us busy for a while, But I don't see it falling off anytime soon. Thank you. Thank you, Senator DeRazzo. Justice Earle, are you at the new courthouse here in Sacramento? No, I'm at the appellate court, which is right across the—there's a rotunda out front just to the west of you. Okay. The trial court is the new courthouse. The dedication ceremony is tomorrow. home. I sat on that court, though, for 16 years before I joined the appellate court. Oh, well, bummer. You don't get to. It's a beautiful courthouse, but I have beautiful property, too, so I can't complain about our courthouse. So, so you just dropped on the facility improvement list. Oh, yes. I'm teasing you. A couple questions for you. I think you're the second person who's referenced this trust fund. Is this the same trust fund that we were talking about in the other hearing? It's a different one? Yeah. The appellate court trust fund, Senator, is uniquely available for both the Supreme Court and courts of appeal, and it's related to filing fees that are paid for appellate filings. Okay. It's only limited to their operations. So why do we think it's going to go down and that you need general funds instead of continuing with the appellate court trust fund? effectively we have a fund balance now that can support the program, but these are ongoing costs, and currently the sort of ongoing commitment is greater than the annual revenues, so we would be spending it down if we were to continue this fund. And there are also other pressing needs that we're looking at in terms of the Appellate Court Trust Fund as it relates to issues that this legislature has dealt with in the past. So there's also just the matter of having a reasonable fund balance and the proposal and the budget to transition in the second year to general fund recognizes this as an ongoing cost that shouldn't be subject to the sort of variability of the appellate course trust fund revenues. Okay. And I know we had an issue where some felt that justice might be denied in the fact that of the level of fines. and I had talked to our consultant about this. Could you potentially, not potentially, could you please provide to us what have been the funds, how much you did increase them? Is there any leeway there to increase them a little more without us getting in trouble that we're denying access? I know there was a period where they went too high and then we came back, And I don't know if this is the case with this trust fund, but if you could supply us with a little information of when were the funds last increased, what percentage were they increased. And because the general fund one of the challenges we have which is for another day is that with all these propositions and initiatives more and more money is being taken from the general fund and being specifically earmarked for certain areas for example Prop 98 for educational funds And what's happening is our general fund is reducing, reducing, reducing to cover all these different initiatives. And so that's really limiting the amount of money we have left to fund all these other things that we know we need to fund. So if there's a reasonable way that some of those fees could be helpful, we would certainly want to look at that. So if you could give us that info. I'll certainly return to staff with the information. but if my memory serves me correctly, that the last time the ACTF revenues and fees were increased was during the Great Recession, and it was intended to actually backfill budget reductions that were taken to the Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court at that time. And so that's really been the last time that... Did you say the recession or depression? The Great Recession. Okay. Sorry, I'm like so on Dayquil and Nightquil. It's not even funny. So, yeah, so now might be a good time for us to revisit. Yeah. Okay, another question that I have. We had another presentation. How long does it take typically for someone to have to wait for an appeal? For it to conclusion? Well, yeah, I guess so. So typically there's a time frame within which an appeal has to be filed, and once it is filed, then the courts of appeal start communicating with the trial courts to get the record for review. And once we have the record, then if it's a criminal or juvenile case and we appoint attorneys, we reach out to the various projects for appointment of attorneys. But the process from the notice of appeal being filed to resolution, Our goal is to get that done within one year. Some of those take much longer, depending on if it's a CEQA case or the size of the record can take much longer. But our goal, at least on the criminal and juvenile cases, is to try to get them done within one year. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I had heard definitely a year and sometimes in excess of that. Okay. Well, thank you for your presentation. You can nay. We're working on it. Okay. All right. I failed to acknowledge the LAO and Department of Finance. Are you two good? Yeah, we didn't raise any concerns with this proposal. Okay. Thank you. I apologize. All right. With that, that concludes issue number five. We're now going to the final issue six, and then we will be taking public comment. I appreciate those of you who are here and have been patiently waiting. Issue number six is the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal court-appointed counsel programs. We have the same set of panelists who are here before us, so that'll save us a little time. We'll start again with you, Justice Earl. Thank you. In this request, the Judicial Council's requesting $11 million in ongoing general fund to address a growing structural problem in California's appellate system. This proposal would provide a $25 per hour pay rate increase for court-appointed counsel in both the Supreme Court's capital program and the Courts of Appeal program. We do want to recognize prior funding included in the 25 budget and express appreciation for the million investment in the appointed council program You should know that Senator Durazo and I fought very hard for that Thank you. We do appreciate that. They have made a difference and have been very impactful, but additional resources remain essential to ensure continued progress and address workload growth and increasing backlog. Right now, court-appointed attorney compensation is simply not competitive with similar positions in other government agencies, and as a result, we are seeing a shrinking pool of attorneys, increasing backlogs, and the loss of experienced counsel to higher-paying work. So without action, we feel our system will continue to crumble. In capital cases before the Supreme Court, the situation is especially urgent. Rates remain largely unchanged for nearly two decades and are still below federal levels today. We now have over 350 individuals on death row without appointed counsel, some waiting 15 to 20 years. Over the past decade, appointments have not kept pace with incoming cases, driving a persistent backlog. So this proposal would increase the Supreme Court attorney compensation rate to $180 per hour, helping the court attract and retain the highly specialized attorneys needed to take on these complex multi-year cases. In the courts of appeal, we are seeing similar pressures. The statewide panel, and you probably know that our statewide panel handles non-capital cases. The state public defender who was here before earlier today handled the capital cases. But our panel has declined significantly and our workforce is aging and most attorneys earn relatively modest incomes despite handling increasing caseloads and serious cases. Because of the lack of attorneys, current caseloads are exploding and each of our six appellate districts is experiencing a growing backlog of unassigned cases. Currently, appellants in criminal cases can wait six to seven months before an attorney is assigned to their case to represent them. So at this core, this request is about meeting the state's constitutional obligation to provide effective counsel to indigent defendants. The requested increase will help stabilize and rebuild the attorney pipeline, retain experienced counsel, and ensure that newer attorneys can develop the skills needed to take on more complex cases. To us, this is not just a funding issue. It's about access to justice, court efficiency, and public trust in the legal system. And I'll just close by, again, expressing the judicial branch's gratitude for our sister branch's thoughtful consideration of judicial branch needs, especially in areas supporting access to justice for vulnerable populations. Thank you. Thank you. LAO or Department of Finance, any comments? Okay, thank you. Senator DeRosso? Thank you very much, and again, thank you and your colleagues for all that they do. This was not on my list of questions, but in the private sector, what is the hourly rate of pay? I'm just a wild. Over $300, some approaching $500, $600 an hour. Yeah, I think it's $500, $600 and up. And on where? Easily, easily. so thank you very much and thank your colleagues everyone who does this work it's amazing to dedicate themselves professionally at this rate of compensation is pretty outrageous I mean it's compelling but since the panel capacitates is so dangerously low, is it primarily compensation, or are there other issues that impact the decrease in the number of attorneys on the panel? I think it's two-part. I think it's primarily compensation, but it's also because there is a shortage of attorney. It's the kind of bulging caseloads that they now have to operate under. and managing that on such a low salary level is, I think, adding stress to the work that they do. Well, I may be out of line here, but I totally support your proposal and should be even more. Thank you. Sorry, I'm out of line here. I was going to say the same thing. I, again, the same response I would give regarding the facilities. I get it of what you submit, and thank you for the cookies. But at some point, we need to start being really real. And so I'm going to ask that you would provide to this committee and also include it with the governor that our people aren't even being paid 50% of what the going rate is. And we really need to begin to look at these bigger pictures and address them. Otherwise, what happens is you get newer attorneys, you know, who are gaining their experience and everything. And, you know, they come. But the longevity, I mean, heck, they have to take care of their families just like everybody else. So I would just encourage you to provide to the committee and to the governor's office, Department of Finance, what the actual rate, the going rate is, and that you ask us to, in forward years, hopefully sooner rather than later, that we would really look at this delta because it's not acceptable. 50% on the dollar is just not right. So I wholeheartedly, we're not supposed to probably say that, but no problem on our end. And we'll look forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you. Happy to come anytime. Thank you all. Thank you. All right. Well, being that that was our last issue that we had before us, normally our consultant kicks me under the table and reminds me that we have public comment. So before we move on to public comment, are there any remaining questions or comments from our colleagues? No? We're good. Okay. Thank you. So we're going to move on to public comment to ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard. Please limit your comments to one minute. I would say 30 seconds because I do have to use the restroom. room. Too much info, but if we could try and keep it definitely no more than a minute, I can hang in there with you. So with that, let's please begin. Good morning. I'm going to talk fast. I'm Jennifer Peabody, the executive director of the California Pellet Project in Los Angeles, returning again this year to support issue number six. I want to thank the governor and the Department of Finance for the panel attorney increase because it is a meaningful step toward market rate and will absolutely aid in recruitment and retention. But I just want to remind this committee that the Court Appointed Appellate Counsel Program has two parts the panel and the projects The JCC had recommended a 30 increase for the projects but the projects did not make it into the governor budget this time We still need that funding, but we understand the state's challenging financial times. Today, 942 people are waiting in limbo in the 2nd Pella District alone. We have a five to nine month wait for council to become available. Behind that number are children who should be home with their families, parents fighting to be reunited with their children, and kids who have families ready to adopt them but cannot move forward. Also waiting are juveniles whose freedom is prolonged by delay and individuals sitting in prison or jail when they do not belong there. The panel increase will bring in new attorneys, but without project funding, we cannot train them at the rates necessary to make a dent in the queue of people waiting for attorneys. With that also while doing our other contractually required duties. Nearly all new attorneys arrive with zero appellate experience, yet they must provide constitutionally effective assistance. The training is our job, and we can't do it without adequate staffing. We're not asking you to take from the panel raise. We are asking that you don't forget about us because we'll be back next year. Thank you. The project request was a 30% increase, which would be $6.474 million. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm here to express my support for agenda item number six regarding the Court of Appeal Court Appointed Counsel Program. My name is Monique Bolden. I'm the Executive Director of the Central California Appellate Program. We serve Justice Earle's district as well as the Fifth District based out of Fresno. I would like to express sincere appreciation for recognition by the Governor's Office, Department of Finance, and especially to the legislature, especially to the comments that Madam Chair and Senator Durazo, you made just now. It brought me almost to tears just hearing the support that we have from the legislature about the critical work that our attorneys do, both our panel attorneys as well as our staff project attorneys. These panel attorneys are the lifeline to provide access to justice for indigent Californias in about 10,000 appellate cases a year. The highest priority for us is to retain the $25 rate increase that is currently in the proposed budget. If there are any additional revenues available, I'd ask you to consider support for the projects. My staff of 16 attorneys oversee the work of 260 panel attorneys. And recently, over a period of 14 months, we've lost three staff attorneys to their very well-deserved retirement. However, they left the doors with a combined 143 years of legal expertise and appellate practice. So replacing that knowledge is practically impossible if we don't get the funding in order to give even close to competitive pay for our staff attorneys. So if it's something that can't be worked out this year, we certainly will be back next year and ask for your serious consideration. And thank you to your staff and thank you all for your time. My name is Lynnell He and I'm the Executive Director of Appellate Defenders. We serve the counties of San Diego, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino. I'm here to express my strong support for budget item number six, the $25 increase for the panel attorneys. It's a meaningful increase towards some sort of parity for our panel attorneys. I have over 400 cases waiting for appointed counsel. And because of the shortage of attorneys, it takes about five to six months to find an attorney. In going through the cases, last week I found a case in which a client should be released. This month he not scheduled for release until November If I hadn been going through the cases he would still be waiting for appointed council and I have no idea how many other clients are in that situation So our top priority is to retain the $25 for the panel. And if there are additional revenues for the projects, we deeply need that money in order to retain our own experienced staff who's charged with training our newly recruited attorneys. Every year that I've been executive director, I have had to hire new staff attorneys, and the biggest challenge is pay. Thank you. I am Jonathan Grossman from the Sixth District Appellate Program, and again, I want to express our thanks to the governor's office and to this committee for your support. For better or for worse, representing defendants and juvenile matters in appeal is done by private entities. The projects themselves are private contractors with the state. The panel attorneys are private contractors or independent contractors. The good part about that is that it's really cheap for the state. The bad part about it is that it was easy to ignore us for decades without getting any increase in funding. The reason why we're in such dire straits now is because we've been ignored for about 20 years. we've had three small increases in the last 20 years or so. And so effectively, due to inflation, there's been about a 60% reduction in our budget in real dollars. What we're asking for is, first of all, don't forget the $25 per hour for the panel attorneys because we really need more panel attorneys. Everybody knows that. But again, they don't get the cases and they don't get the training unless there are project attorneys there to do the work. Right now, we've lost 70% of our staff attorneys in the last three years. That's been our turnover. You heard earlier that people from the Court of Appeal, for example, OSPD, need more funding because they can't retain personnel because they could get better-paying jobs elsewhere. Those people get paid about 50% to 100% more than our staff attorneys do. When our staff attorneys leave, unless they retire, they go on to the Public Defender's Office, OSPD, the Attorney General's office, or the courts of appeal. They pay much more than we do because we haven't had an increase significantly for the last 20 years. We made the... I'll just leave it at that. Thank you very much. Okay, you guys, I love other folks who are saying, and I agree with you. Please keep your comments to a minute or less. Otherwise, we're going to have to take a brief recess for me to use the restroom. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. I understand. Thank you. Ray LeBove, representing California Appellate Defense Council, the membership organization of the panel attorneys. And I'm here to endorse the testimony from Justice Earle and previous witnesses, and also to thank everybody involved in moving forward on this, from the Department of Finance to the governor's office, to this committee especially, and especially to the, or additionally, to the great work of your committee staff, because the analysis really laid out exactly what the issue is and what the problem is and the reasons for whether it really increases needed. The recent increases that we've had have helped for recruitment and retention. But as you heard it continues to be a serious problem So we here to thank the Judicial Council thank the Governor Office and the Department of Finance and you for what currently in the budget and for your very significant support for it and much appreciated Thank you Hi, my name is Caitlin Christian and I've been serving as court-appointed appellate counsel for 15 years and I'm just here to express my appreciation for your comments today and the raise last year and your continued support this year. On behalf of myself and my family and my clients and their families, it's truly life-changing work that you're doing. So thank you. Hi, this will be the last comment on this, I think. Jonathan Roberts from Central California Appellate Program. I just want to reassert and thank you so much for bringing to light all of the needs that we have and thank the governor's office for inclusion in the budget and hope that we can continue this dialogue in the future. Thank you. Good afternoon. Josh Gogger on behalf of the chief probation officers of California. While not specifically discussed in the agenda today, probation departments urge the legislature to restore funding proposed to be cut from the judicial branches pre-trial program. Despite bipartisan pushback in this subcommittee last year, the governor's budget includes a $20 million reduction to the historical funding level of this program. The administration continually reiterated that the reduction simply aligns budgeted authority with prior expenditures. Those finalized expenditures now show this was an inaccurate assumption, and service levels will now need to be reduced without action by the legislature. The pretrial program includes assisting courts in making safe release decisions, monitoring in the community rather than pretrial incarceration, diversion workload, and Proposition 36 related cases. We are requesting the legislature restore the $20 million reduction in the program, provide additional funding to address increased caseloads. Caseloads have increased 50% over a two-year period before Prop 36 has really even hit the caseload numbers, and at the same time, the state is proposing to reduce funding by 30%. Thank you. Good afternoon. Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support of Legal Aid 3 funding request as the state's oldest Legal Aid Support Center. We know firsthand how important these programs are in preventing homelessness, accessing health care services, public benefits, and access to justice at a time when their demand is increasing due to HR1 cuts as well as instability caused by federal action. These services are critical. In addition, we appreciate Senator DeRozzo's questions related to data. We support data transparency for eviction, defense filings, and outcomes. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

we must uplift and reinforce that the biggest challenge for counties is the lack of state funding to carry out the constitutional mandate. While the state has delegated the provision of indigent defense to counties, The courts still have weighed in that the state has a responsibility in that fulfilling that mandate. And then as I must repeat earlier, it was raised that California is one of two states where there isn't a consistent level of funding provided for indigent defense and couple that with some of the highest caseloads in the nation is deeply concerning. And so to highlight a couple of the recommendations, They state that the state should provide funding to limit public defense workloads, should provide funding for support staff, and then also for recruitment programs in rural counties. And then lastly, in regards to issue number one, similar to the OSPD's request, counties are in dire need for funding to implement the Racial Justice Act, specifically our public defender offices and DAs. So thank you for consideration.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters Union for the Court Interpreters. Two things. There's an absolute dire need for more court interpreters. I think there are over 100 vacancies in L.A. County alone, which causes a lot of problems. But we also want to propose a solution. There is a baseline amount that is allocated each year in the budget specifically and exclusively for court interpreters. What is not available is that if there is a need mid-year, as was brought up earlier, mid-year, based on need to adjust that amount. Instead, courts have to take, Judicial Council takes from one court to another court, or they have to take money from other court services to pay for interpreter services. There's, right now for the interpreter exam, there's a line item, and if there's more money needed throughout the year, there's budget control language that says Department of Finance can allocate additional money based on need. We do not have that for court interpreter services, only for the exam So if there were a way mid where there a demonstrated need for court interpreter services that courts can judicial counsel can come and say hey we need an extra million million that that could be turned around in a very short period, mid-year, then we wouldn't have cases being delayed, which is happening right now. We wouldn't have parties being asked to bring their own interpreters, which is happening right now. And we've had cases where they're not supposed to, but they're asking family members to come out of the audience. And so that's going on. So if there's a mid-year adjustment available, similar to language that's in there for court interpreter exams, we think we could solve this issue going forward. Thank you for being here.

You're fine. Could you, sir, could you provide your contact information to our sergeant here? Just for future reference, we may have subsequent questions.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Member. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We are here to echo the comments of our colleagues and to urge the state to prioritize the rate increase for court-appointed appellate counsel and if funds are available for the projects as well. This is a basic access to justice issue and one that must remain central to California's budget. We are also here to support funding for OSPD's efforts to implement the Racial Justice Act. The RJA is a historic law whose promise can only be realized if it is properly implemented. OSPD plays a central role in that implementation. And lastly, related to the AB 625 report, we urge the state to prioritize indigent defense funding. California, as you've heard, is an outlier in its lack of statewide funding for trial-level indigent defense. This has dramatic impacts on the low-income people hauled into court each day to face criminal charges in our state. This has results in racial, economic, and geographic disparities in criminal case outcomes, and it results in higher prison admission rates across the state. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Having heard from the members of the public, assuming no further questions or comments. Okay. Thank you all the individuals who participated in the public testimony today. If you were not able to testify today or have something else you'd like to add, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you, everyone, for your participation, for staff and our sergeants and everyone today. We have concluded the agenda for today's hearing. The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections and Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation is now adjourned. Thank you.