The proposals come after the state eliminated dozens of court fines and fees over the past two years that advocates said disproportionately affected low-income criminal defendants. “We support the Governor’s proposal and are committed to working with him and with legislative leaders in the coming weeks as they finalize the state budget.” “We’re grateful for the efforts of both the Governor’s administration and the Legislature to reform the system and provide necessary backfill funding for the judicial branch,” said Martin Hoshino, administrative director of the Judicial Council, in an email. In a 2017 report a commission of courts officials recommended limiting the use of civil assessments or letting fines be converted to community service. The Judicial Council, which governs the court system, has supported making changes to civil assessments. Palmer, a spokesman for Newsom’s Department of Finance, declined to comment. The coalition said it hopes Newsom will back full elimination of fees when he unveils his revised budget proposal this week. Senate leaders endorsed that plan in their budget proposals last month, as they announced an unprecedented $68 billion projected budget surplus. The proposal by some lawmakers and the Debt Free Justice coalition to eliminate the fees entirely could cost about twice as much. Gavin Newsom in his January budget proposed halving the fees, to a maximum of $150, and spending $50 million to backfill court budgets. The plaintiffs in May amended that suit to include the state’s Judicial Council, accusing it of using payments to incentivize local courts to collect more fees.Īlso San Mateo County has agreed to halt collection of the fees until October. In January advocates sued San Mateo County Superior Court challenging its practice of automatically charging the $300 maximum fee in all traffic cases with a missed deadline. “They were trying to take all of this money away from us,” she said, “but we didn’t have any in the first place.”Ĭivil assessment fees are disproportionately borne by people of color, who are overrepresented in traffic stops compared to their share of the population, the report said. It made her ineligible for a driver’s license for 13 years, the report said. She was charged late fees on traffic citations five times since 2009, amounting to more than $1,500 of debt, about double the cost of the original tickets. The report gave as an example a San Lorenzo resident who is a CalWorks recipient and mother who could not afford to pay for traffic violations. In Riverside County, the fees that the court system kept made up 14% of its budget, according to a report published by the coalition this year. The fees generate nearly $100 million annually, and the courts retain more than half. Money collected from the extra charges bolsters court coffers, leading advocates to accuse the state of paying for its judicial system by charging those who can least afford it. The group says the fees trap low-income Californians in a cycle of ballooning debt with the courts. A $300 maximum fine can be added for violations as minor as jaywalking and on tickets that originally cost as little as $35, according to the Debt Free Justice California, a coalition of organizations, policy experts and legal advocates opposing “unfair ways the criminal legal system drains wealth from vulnerable communities.”Ĭalifornia has one of the highest late fees in the nation, the coalition says.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |