From CalMatters Digital Democracy reporter Ryan Sabalow:
California’s court reporter shortage has gotten so bad that thousands of people, including alleged domestic violence victims, no longer have a written record of their civil cases, making it harder for them to exercise their constitutional right to appeal.
But it appears controversial legislation that court reporters were pushing is dead in the Legislature for the year, giving the California Supreme Court time to rule on a pending case that could decide whether California’s law prohibiting recording in many types of cases is unconstitutional.
Last month, CalMatters reported on how the court reporter shortage has soured to the point that legal aid associations petitioned the state Supreme Court to invalidate California’s law banning recording in certain civil cases.
The petitioners argued that the ban creates a “two-tiered” justice system where wealthy litigants have the option of hiring private court reporters to type up a written record. But people who can’t afford the more than $3,000 a day to hire a contract reporter are at the mercy of an understaffed court system.
After the petition had been filed, the court reporters union sponsored legislation that critics feared could conflict with the court’s decision and make the problem worse.
But earlier this week, the union’s Assembly Bill 882 was suddenly pulled off the Senate Judiciary Committee calendar. The bill, which would have lifted a recording ban on court proceedings for three years, needed to pass the committee to advance, making it likely dead for the year. Assemblymember Diane Papan, a San Mateo Democrat and bill author, didn’t return messages.
The bill’s apparent death comes after California Attorney General Rob Bonta last month took the unusual step of weighing in on the Supreme Court case, siding with petitioners.
Bonta wrote that many low-income litigants can’t get a record of their court hearings, “including proceedings that affect some of the most significant aspects of their lives.” He said the situation has become untenable for both litigants and the courts.
