California voters say the judiciary is No. 1. But that’s not a good thing.
Asked where state leaders should cut funding to help reduce the $25 billion budget deficit, 59 percent of registered voters told the Field Poll “the courts and state judiciary,” according to a survey released today.
Courts tied with prisons as the most popular budget targets among poll respondents. They were the only two program areas among 14 where a majority of voters supported cuts. By comparison, large majorities want schools and police shielded from cuts, according to the survey.
The results aren’t a complete surprise. The judicial branch doesn’t always fare well in public polls. A 2006 Public Policy Institute of California survey found that just 2 percent of respondents thought courthouses should be the top priority for infrastructure spending – far below the 48 percent who ranked schools No. 1.
The Alliance of California Judges has a more critical take on the Field Poll’s findings.
“Coming on the heels of the scathing Bureau of State Audits report detailing mismanagement and an abysmal record of failure, this is yet another wake up call we must take seriously,” the group wrote in a press release. “Our judicial leaders must take appropriate action now to restore the confidence of the public in our branch of government".
Wait until the public stops the blind faith adherence to the "rule of law". California judiciary you have what the middle east dictators didn't have i.e. a ten maybe fifteen year notice that people will take to the street for justice and not the "rule of law". Take away justice, then, and what are governments but great bandit bands?
Saint Augustine, Civitas Dei (City of God,4.4)
Posted by: THE KAT | March 17, 2011 at 02:22 PM
It always sounds like a good idea to make cuts to the court system. The problem is so few people are actually familiar with, or have an understanding of how the system works (let alone the Constitution).
The most frustrating thing that I see with cut backs in the court system is, that judges are shifting costs to the defendants (I'm a criminal defense attorney). For example, in Washington State our speedy trial rule has all but been gutted. Prosecutors are no longer held to a strict time line. I recently have had a case continued on two separate trial dates, because the prosecutor was not ready. Mind you this is a misdemeanor case with a two page report. But everyone seems to think that this behavior is okay, because of cut backs.
The point is not to complain about that (at least here), but to show how these cut backs are actually just shifting costs to the Defendants. We cannot let this continue to happen.
Posted by: SL | March 21, 2011 at 03:04 PM