Assembly Bill 590, the so-called civil Gideon bill, was gutted late Monday as part of the budget deal hammered out by the governor and lawmakers.
Republicans objected to plans to create a pilot program that would have provided publicly funded lawyers to poor litigants in certain civil cases, legislative sources confirmed.
Under terms of the deal — details of which were still trickling out late Tuesday — the state will still tack on an extra $10 to certain post-judgment fees. But instead of funding the civil Gideon pilot program in 2011, the $11 million generated annually by the fee surcharge will go to the state’s general fund.
“Everyone’s disappointed,” said Julia Wilson, executive director of the Legal Aid Association of California. “It was incredibly significant, both for the legal services agencies and the courts.”
Well, not everyone … after the jump.
Republicans had opposed AB 590 as it moved through the legislative process, usually citing unforeseen future costs. But there was no obvious explanation Tuesday for its inclusion in the budget detail. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth referred questions to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. A spokeswoman for the committee’s vice chairman, Huntington Beach Republican Tom Harman, could not provide information on the issue Tuesday afternoon. And the bill’s author, Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on the budget action.
“It has never felt like a partisan issue to us,” Wilson said. “It’s not a safety net or a hand-out program.”
AB 590 was expected to help litigants with “basic human needs” cases involving issues such as housing disputes. Advocates for the bill expressed hope that Feuer would try to revive the pilot program provision later in the legislative session.
In other budget news, legislative staff and the Administrative Office of the Courts finally negotiated trailer bill language Tuesday that will require the Judicial Council to expand Rule of Court 10.802 to provide greater public access to court records and management information. Employee groups, as well as some legislators and judges, have called on the judiciary to be more transparent in its spending decisions; unlike other state agencies, the judicial branch is not subject provisions of the California Public Records Act.
— Cheryl Miller
Follow me on Twitter
Comments