Fewer Cuts to Courts Seen in Lawmakers' New Budget Plan
The proposal still ties reductions to the fate of billions of dollars in requested aid from the federal government to cope with the effects of the COVID-19 crisis. But lawmakers would cut money for courts by far less.
June 03, 2020 at 09:18 PM
3 minute read
California lawmakers offered an alternative budget plan on Wednesday that would significantly ease substantial cuts to the judiciary outlined by Gov. Gavin Newsom last month.
The proposal, like Newsom's, still ties reductions to the fate of billions of dollars in requested aid from the federal government to cope with the effects of the COVID-19 crisis. But lawmakers would cut money for courts by far less—$100 million to Newsom's $206 million—if $14 billion in aid arrives from Washington, D.C. Additionally, they offered no plans for more cutbacks in the 2021-22 fiscal year as the governor did.
Democratic leaders also rejected Newsom's proposed reductions to funding for dependency counsel, court interpreters, collaborative and drug court projects, equal access funds, the Court Appointed Special Advocate Program and other specialized projects.
The budget plan relies on revenue and public assistance caseload numbers that aren't as dire as those cited by Newsom in his revised budget proposal of May. Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, who chairs the budget committee, said Democrats project "a strong likelihood of federal funding," despite doubts raised by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Ting told reporters in a press call Wednesday that lawmakers do not want to assume the state won't receive federal money and go too far in making cuts.
State judiciary officials Wednesday afternoon were still trying to gather information on the legislative plan's specifics, which were only outlined in broad strokes in the hastily assembled press call.
The plan still eliminates $2 billion Newsom had hoped for in his original January proposal to allocate for courthouse construction and rehabilitation projects over the next five years. The proposal would also give the Legislature authority to decide which programs would be eliminated or reduced if the $100 million cut is triggered.
Additionally, Democrats have proposed a misdemeanor diversion program that was not included in the governor's budget plans. Details have not been made public, and the issue is still being negotiated among legislative leaders and the governor.
Newsom had no immediate public response to the recommendations. The Legislature has until June 15 to send a final budget to the governor.
In related news on Wednesday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee shelved a bill to create 50 new judgeships. A legislative analysis had pegged the costs of the new judgeships at approximately $16.5 million, including support staff. The budget approved for the current fiscal year provides money for 25 new judgeships.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly
- 2First Amendment Litigator Returns to Gibson Dunn
- 3In Record Year for Baker Botts, Revenue Up 11.8%, PEP Up 17.6%
- 4Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?
- 5Free Microsoft Browser Extension Is Costing Content Creators, Class Action Claims
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250