"Stakes High in Few California SBOE Cases Involving Ex Parte Communications"

Quoted in this one in Bloomberg BNA. 

Even though SBOE members aren't judges and their forum isn't a court, the same reasons why ex parte communications aren't allowed in court proceedings could be valid at the SBOE, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson, who focuses on election law and ethics, told Bloomberg BNA May 9.

In a court setting, neither side should have a direct link to the judge without the other side being present, she said.

“It's fair to ask ourselves if we should do it in this setting,” Levinson said. “With so few people availing themselves except for sophisticated taxpayers maybe it's not working.”

At a minimum, the meetings should be disclosed, Levinson said. Next, someone needs to be watching the disclosures.

“Mass disclosure only gets us part of the way there,” she said.

CA Budget News: "Brown Links Budget Dollars To Department Reforms"

Interviewed for this one on Capitol Public Radio.

Kings arena subsidy foes sue city to get measure back on ballot

Quoted in this article in the Sacramento Bee. 

Insisting voters should get their say, the groups fighting the proposed $258 million public subsidy for a new Sacramento Kings arena sued the city Wednesday to overturn the city clerk’s decision to disqualify their proposed June ballot measure.

Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork (STOP) and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court, arguing that their signed petitions achieved “substantial compliance” with election laws.

... 

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2014/01/29/3159785/arena-opponents-file-against-city.html#storylink=cpy

“A lot of this comes down to who the judge is,” said Jessica Levinson of Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles. She added, “The more problems (there are), the more a judge is going to be inclined to say the signatures shouldn’t qualify.”

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2014/01/29/3159785/arena-opponents-file-against-city.html#storylink=cpy

New court rules; clinic break-in

Quoted in this one in the Press Enterprise.


Picketing and proselytizing are prohibited at San Bernardino County courthouses under an order issued Nov. 19 by Presiding Judge Marsha Slough.

Does the new order trample the First Amendment?

The central courthouse has been picketed by people protesting judges’ decisions or county supervisors’ actions. Did that prompt the ban? No, picketers were not the target, Slough said.

The order came in response to complaints from people waiting in lines to get into the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse who were being aggressively proselytized by people for religious views.

Waits to get through security checkpoints can be as long as half an hour or more, and people who have business with the court were a captive audience, she said.

In order not to target any group or viewpoint, the order simply bars threatening, confronting, interfering with or harassing anyone entering any county courthouse.

I spoke to two First Amendment experts. Both said the order appears within constitutional bounds.

“Whenever the government makes restrictions on who’s speaking … we’re very nervous about censorship,” said Jessica Levinson, professor at Loyola Law School.

But if the order is neutral regarding the content of the speech, the court can place restrictions on “time, place or manner,” she said.

Terry Francke, general counsel for open-government advocates Californians Aware, said courts are allowed to control expressive activities on property they own. But that doesn’t extend to the public sidewalk.

Slough’s order applies just to the walkways where people gather to enter the courthouses. Volunteers who monitor the lines and help people with directions will watch for violators; deputies are in charge of enforcement.

California Courts Are Cash-Strapped But Owed $7.5 billion?

I'll be on Patt Morrison today at 2pm to discuss.

With more court cutbacks, has the system reached its breaking point?

Here is a link to my appearance on Patt Morrison today.

In response to Governor Jerry Brown’s announced cuts of $544 million in state court funding in the next fiscal year, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said such austerities “are both devastating and disheartening” and explained that they will seriously compromise the state’s “ability to provide equal access to justice.”
The judicial branch cuts are among $4.1 billion in new budget reductions revealed last week to balance the $91 billion state budget for the coming fiscal year beginning July 1. The budget changes will require trial courts to use $300 million of reserve funds and delay $240 million worth of courthouse construction and renovation, according to Brown.
The state will also require court employees to contribute more to pension funds, which will reportedly save the state $4 million. Both officials and attorneys are concerned about how much the cutbacks will impinge upon the judicial system’s ability to function properly.

WEIGH IN:

How badly funded are courts in California now? How well will the judicial infrastructure be able to sustain more funding cuts? Is the state of California in a financial crisis that it cannot recover from?

Guests:

Jessica Levinson, professor, Loyola Law School
Judge Margaret Henry, supervising judge, dependency, Los Angeles Juvenile Court;
Justice Douglas Miller, associate justice, California State Court of Appeal; member of the state judicial council (the policy making body of the state court)

More court cutbacks, has the system reached its breaking point?

I'll be on Patt Morrison today to discuss.

Proposition 25: Legislators Must Police Themselves?

Back in June 2010 California voters passed Proposition 25. That measure, named the "Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act," lowered the threshold required to pass a budget from two-thirds of both state legislative houses to a simple majority of both houses.

But the initiative did more than that: It also stated that if lawmakers do not pass a budget on time they will not get paid until they do successfully do. Politically, it was smart move to sell the measure to the public by saying something like, "legislators shouldn't get paid if they don't do their jobs." That's true, but that little provision was really just there to sweeten the deal.

As it turned out in the summer of 2011, lawmakers did not pass a balanced budget on time after Governor Jerry Brown vetoed their initial plan. State Controller John Chiang, relying on Proposition 25, then stopped paying legislators' salaries. All told they lost less than two weeks of pay.

In an unwise public relations move, legislators sued, claiming that Chiang did not have the authority to stop legislators from being paid and a Sacramento Superior Court judge tentatively agreed last week. In essence the ruling said it is legislators who have the authority to stop pay, not the State Controller. Based on a separation of powers issue that may well be the correct legal decision, it is hard to imagine that the voters thought legislators would be policing themselves when they voted for this initiative.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Courts bill would shift power but to whom? Large trial courts would gain influence while Legislature regains the purse strings.

I am quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. 

To hear the two sides tell it, either the sky will fall or the sea will part.

Since the unexpected passage last month of a controversial bill to decentralize control of the state judiciary, Assembly Bill 1208's supporters and opponents have continued to make countering claims about what will happen if it becomes law.

Detractors say the bill would dismantle the statewide administration of justice, letting fickle legislators stampede over judicial branch autonomy. Supporters say it would strip budget decisions from incompetent managers, ensuring trial courts get 100 percent of the money they're due.

The reality of a "decentralized" court system, if passed by the state Senate this year, would fall somewhere in between those claims.

In practice, the bill would fundamentally limit the authority of the policymaking Judicial Council - and its chair, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye - making it more difficult to push through statewide infrastructure projects. But while trial courts could see more money and greater autonomy over their own budgets, the bill would almost certainly keep power centralized by handing the purse strings to Sacramento and granting a larger say to the biggest trial court, Los Angeles County.

Far from truly "decentralized," the judiciary also wouldn't return to the days when there were 58 completely independent trial courts - called "fiefdoms" by some. The "California Rules of Court" that create a uniform system of paper forms and procedural policies will remain in effect. Services like self-help centers and drug courts are unlikely to go by the wayside. And the current scheme for determining how much money each county receives would remain intact.

"The bill would take a lot of the budgetary power away from the Judicial Council, and it would basically be dispersed. And when you take away budgetary power, you take away power," said Jessica Levinson, a government professor at Loyola Law School who has reviewed the current bill's language. "It's intended to a certain extent to cut the legs out from under the Judicial Council."
   
... 

"Democratic lawmakers sue controller over his withholding of their pay"

Democratic lawmakers sued state Controller John Chiang on Tuesday, arguing that he misused his power last summer when he docked their pay for passing a budget he said was not balanced.
...
"Is the case meritorious? I don't know, but I think it's a public relations disaster for legislators to sue on this," said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "To sue for their pay when so many of their constituents don't have a job, don't have the pay that they get and don't have much respect for them is not a good move."

Finish reading the article on the LAT. 

"California Courts in Crisis"

Jessica Levinson is interviewed on Warren Olney's, "Which Way, L.A.?" on KCRW.

"California Courts in Crisis"

Jessica Levinson will be on "Which Way, L.A.?" tonight at 7pm PT talking about budget cuts in the California court system. Click here for more.

WI Supreme Court Candidate who opted against public funds lags behind fundraising of opponents

The Journal Sentinel has this report. 

"The only state Supreme Court candidate funding her campaign with private donations raised less than half as much money through January as the three candidates collecting checks from taxpayers."