Stay Connected Donate

Category: Access to Justice

Home | Newsroom | Access to Justice

Western Center’s 2019 Budget & Legislative Victories

16 Western Center bills were signed by Governor Gavin Newsom this year, marking huge wins for California. Of note are two renter protection bills, AB 1482, now one of the nation’s most expansive anti-rent gouging and just cause for eviction laws, and SB 329, which prohibits discrimination against housing voucher holders.

For health care, SB 464 will require perinatal health providers to undergo implicit bias training to address the maternal mortality rate for black women in California, which is 4-5 times higher than it is for white women. For financial security, SB 616 outlaws the ability of debt collectors to drain people’s bank accounts, leaving them without funds for necessary day-to-day expenses. These legislative victories are in addition to big wins achieved in the state budget earlier this year.

See the full suite of Western Center’s 2019 budget and legislative victories below!

New Study Finds Youth Fee Repeal Law Led to Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Relief for California Families

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 Almost two years after implementation of Senate Bill 190, more work remains to bring debt-free justice to youth and families across California

SACRAMENTO—California counties have stopped collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from vulnerable families after the passage of Senate Bill 190 (Mitchell, Lara), which abolished fees in the juvenile legal system, according to a new study released today by UC Berkeley Law School’s Policy Advocacy Clinic. Some counties, however, continue to charge prohibited fees to families and to collect past fees. The full report is available online here.

According to San Mateo County resident Sonya N., “It was a blessing when San Mateo stopped collecting thousands of dollars in fees they had charged me from my son’s juvenile case. As a single parent with two kids, it was a real hardship to make that payment every month. When the County cleared the old fees, it was less of a struggle to buy gas or pay for my family’s basic needs.”

However, not all parents and guardians live in counties that ended fee collection. San Diego County parents Andrew and Christina S. were charged more than $15,000 in juvenile fees when their adopted son got into trouble: “We were thrilled when we learned that SB 190 was passed, but it did nothing about the fees that we were charged for one of our six children we adopted through the County foster care system. Instead of applying the tenets of SB 190, the County accelerated collection efforts with a judgement, lien, and now threats to garnish our wages. We would hope that all families with juvenile fees can get relief.”

The clinic conducted the study on behalf of the Western Center on Law & Poverty, which sponsored SB 190. Starting January 1, 2018, SB 190 repealed county authority to charge fees in the juvenile legal system. The legislation also ended several fees for young people ages 18-21 in the criminal (adult) legal system.

Researchers found that all counties stopped charging new juvenile fees before the law went into effect. Although SB 190 did not waive previously assessed fees, 36 counties voluntarily discharged or stopped collecting them, relieving hundreds of thousands of families of more than $237 million.

According to study co-author Stephanie Campos-Bui, “The majority of counties have taken it upon themselves to end the collection of hundreds of millions of dollars in previously assessed fees. Such widespread relief is unprecedented in the history of criminal justice reform and can serve as a model for debt-free justice in other states.”

Counties have gone beyond the requirements of SB 190 in other important ways: one county refunded families who made payments on unlawfully charged fees, some counties stopped charging fees not repealed by SB 190, and three counties repealed fees in the adult system.

In spite of significant progress, the study found that some counties are violating SB 190 by pursuing prohibited juvenile fees through child support orders and by charging young people ages 18-21 in the adult system. According to Western Center on Law & Poverty Legislative Advocate Jessica Bartholow, “With other legal services providers across the state, we are actively monitoring and addressing these ongoing violations. We expect counties to comply fully with SB 190.”

Twenty-two counties are still pursuing over $136 million in previously assessed juvenile fees from California families. Of these counties, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Tulare, and Stanislaus are collecting more than 95% of the total statewide. San Diego, home to Mr. and Mrs. S., is still collecting $58 million from families.

In light of these findings, the researchers recommend that counties stop assessing all remaining SB 190 fees, voluntarily end collection of previously assessed fees, and notify affected youth and their families of the law change. The researchers also recommend that the state oversee local child support compliance with SB 190 and pass legislation to make all previously assessed SB 190 fees unenforceable and uncollectable.

In response to the study, SB 190 co-author Senator Holly J. Mitchell said, “We can all be proud of the progress that we have made, but it is clear we can do better. I look forward to continued work with impacted youth and their families until all fee collection is ended statewide.”

Congressman Tony Cárdenas of California’s 29th Congressional District also said the study’s findings were a call to action: “We need to end the cruel practice of collecting fees from youth that keep children in jail and American families in debt. I am proud to have introduced the Eliminating Debtor’s Prison for Kids Act and to be leading the Congressional call to action to end these unfair fees. I urge my colleagues in Washington and legislators in my home state of California to join me in my fight to ensure that our youth have a second chance at a better life.”

CONTACTS:

Stephanie Campos-Bui, Policy Advocacy Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law, (510) 643-4624, scamposbui@law.berkeley.edu

Jess Bartholow, Legislative Advocate at Western Center on Law & Poverty, (916) 282-5119, jbartholow@wclp.org

###

 

Homeless Californians Who Commit Minor Crimes Could Get Treatment Instead Of Jail Under Proposed Ballot Measure

Homeless people in California convicted of drug crimes or charges such as indecent exposure or defecating in public could be sentenced to treatment instead of jail time under a proposed ballot measure.

Plans for the initiative — which were submitted last week and aren’t yet approved for the November ballot — come as Californians now view homelessness as a top concern in the state, tied with jobs and the economy, according to a recent poll.

…“We know that delivering those services in a forced, institutional setting — which this seems aimed at doing — actually has a very low success rate. It doesn’t result in people stabilizing over the long term,” said Anya Lawler, a policy advocate at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, which supports the causes of low-income Californians. 

Read more 

PRESS RELEASE: L.A. Man Sues City After Car Towed and Sold Over Two Parking Tickets

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Car Auctioned Despite Man’s Participation in Community Assistance Parking Program

LOS ANGELES — A person experiencing homelessness, Joseph Safuto, has sued the City of Los Angeles, challenging the city’s practice of towing vehicles as a mechanism for collecting debt – in this case two unpaid parking tickets that resulted in a lapsed registration. The lawsuit challenges the city’s practice of towing vehicles without a public safety justification solely because of lapsed registration, and it challenges the way the city conducts towing hearings.

“I put a lot of effort into getting the car registered, but I had those two parking tickets that were holding it up. I was trying to work them off through CAPP, and they towed it anyway,” said Safuto. “I was already struggling to get me and my daughter housing and to get on my feet again. When my car was towed, it pushed me into a deeper hole, not just financially but also emotionally. It was debilitating, and all of this for two parking tickets. It’s wrong to leverage a small debt to the city to take people’s property.”

The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Western Center on Law & Poverty, and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California are representing Safuto.

“At a time when the city should be focusing its resources on moving people out of homelessness, Mr. Safuto’s case illustrates how the City’s continued reliance on law enforcement and punitive measures actually perpetuate the cycle of poverty,” said Shayla Myers, senior attorney at Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.

Safuto suffers from mobility disabilities that prevent him from working. He used his vehicle to visit his nine-year-old daughter, attend medical appointments, and run errands. 

In April 2019, the Los Angeles Police Department ordered Safuto’s vehicle towed, even though the car was not impeding traffic or impacting public safety in any way. The justification for the tow was that his registration had expired, but he was prevented from re-registering his vehicle, even though he had paid the registration fee. The city had a hold on his registration because he had not paid two outstanding parking tickets, totaling about $350.

At the time of the tow, Safuto was enrolled in the Community Assistance Parking Program, which allows people experiencing homelessness to pay off outstanding parking tickets by performing community service. He was scheduled to participate in the program on the day his vehicle was towed.

“Leaders of California and Los Angeles say they are working to get people out of poverty and out of homelessness, but actions like these work against individuals like Mr. Safuto who try their best to stay afloat and follow the law,” said Rebecca Miller, an attorney at Western Center on Law & Poverty. “Our state can’t afford city policies that punish people for poverty.”

Safuto informed the officer who towed his vehicle that he had submitted necessary proof and fees to register his car, and that he was participating in the Community Assistance Parking Program, but the officer had the car towed anyway.

Safuto later presented this information at an administrative hearing, where he contested the tow, but the administrative officer only considered that the car had not been registered at the time of the tow.

Because Safuto was unable to pay the fees associated with the tow — including a $115 City of Los Angeles “vehicle release fee,” a $41.50 daily storage fee, and a $70 lien processing fee — the towing company sold his car at lien sale.

Despite the fact that the car was sold, Safuto was charged $1004.50 to cover the lien and he still had to do the community service to work off the parking ticket debt.

“Everyone has a right to due process and security in their belongings, and cars are no exception,” said Julia Devanthéry, the Dignity for All staff attorney at the ACLU of SoCal. “Vehicles are essential for many Angelenos — especially those experiencing homelessness. The city should be investing in affordable housing instead of cutting people’s essential lifelines to work and safety by towing their cars for debt collection.”

This action is an amendment to a petition filed in July. Safuto seeks a court order to ensure that the City tows vehicles only when it is necessary for public safety, rather than for debt collection. Safuto also seeks to reverse the decision of the administrative hearing officer and recover all costs associated with the tow, as well as the cost to replace his vehicle.

Read the lawsuit here.

 

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Sara Williams, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, (323) 801-7996, sjwilliams@lafla.org

ACLU SoCal Communications & Media Advocacy, (213) 977-5252, communications@aclusocal.org

###

About Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA) seeks to achieve equal justice for people living in poverty across Greater Los Angeles. LAFLA changes lives through direct representation, systems change and community empowerment. It has five offices in Los Angeles County, along with four Self-Help Legal Access Centers at area courthouses and three domestic violence clinics to aid survivors.

About Western Center on Law & Poverty
Western Center on Law & Poverty fights for justice and system-wide change to secure housing, health care, racial justice and a strong safety net for low-income Californians. Western Center attains real-world, policy solutions for clients through litigation, legislative and policy advocacy, and technical assistance and legal support for the state’s legal aid programs. Western Center is California’s oldest and largest legal services support center.

About ACLU of Southern California
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California was founded in 1923 to defend and secure rights guaranteed by the Constitution – free speech, religion, the rights of assembly, freedom of the press, and due process under the law — and extend them to people who have been excluded from their protection. Our work is accomplished through litigation in the courts, public education and lobbying.

 

California voters may be asked to steer homeless to services

California voters could decide next year whether to create new county courts to steer homeless people to mental health and drug addiction treatment programs.

Former Assemblyman Mike Gatto, a Democrat, proposed a ballot measure on Thursday aimed at providing services to people who commit crimes like defecating in public or using drugs.

…“The initiative is an embarrassing attempt to make California more visually appealing to those who have no interest or knowledge in addressing the root causes of what is happening to people in our state and country,” the Western Center on Law and Poverty, a nonprofit legal organization, wrote in a statement.

Read more 

Lawsuit: Los Angeles Overcharges Poor Probationers

At the legal clinic run by A New Way of Life, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that provides shelter and services to formerly incarcerated women and their children, attorneys noticed a concerning pattern.

Community members who served jail or prison time persistently told attorneys that they “were being charged excessive amounts for the cost of probation, amounts that they couldn’t ever hope to repay,” said C.T. Turney-Lewis, the group’s supervising staff attorney. Oftentimes, they “have no income and were leaving probation with thousands and thousands of dollars in outstanding costs.”

…The criminal justice-related fees assessed by California counties are among the highest in the country, with Los Angeles topping the list, according to a study by the Western Center on Law & Poverty, an advocacy group of legal scholars. 

Read more

California officials shouldn’t be ‘stunned’ by rising homelessness in Los Angeles (or anywhere else)

By Alexander “Sasha” Harnden, Policy Advocate at Western Center on Law & Poverty

As results from recent homelessness counts from cities and counties across California are released, showing large increases in unsheltered populations, public officials are reportedly “stunned,” “shocked,” and “alarmed” by the numbers.

No one in California who has followed the efforts to increase protections for tenants, ease rising rents and housing instability, and encourage proven solutions to homelessness should be shocked or stunned by our state’s increasing homelessness. It is predictable, expected, and the natural result of our legislature’s failure to enact reasonable reforms in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe.

We should not be shocked, but we should all be alarmed.

We’ve all seen recent stories about how local expenditures on homeless services haven’t put a dent in the crisis because those efforts are frustrated by new families falling into homelessness. We’ve read stories about rising rent burdens, inappropriate evictions of long-term tenants, and the large proportions of today’s homeless population who aren’t homeless because of mental illness or substance abuse but because of economic factors beyond their control. We’ve read about the outsized power wielded by interest groups representing landlords, the real estate industry, and housing speculators, and about our state’s inability to enact meaningful tenant protections.

And yet, despite the clear connection between these stories, California officials find themselves “shocked” and “stunned” by the inevitable increase in homelessness that flows from these conditions, and from the inability or unwillingness to address them.

Just last month, the California State Assembly failed to bring a measure up for a floor vote that would have required “just cause” for landlords to evict tenants. AB 1481, authored by Assembly members Tim Grayson and Rob Bonta, would have required that landlords state an allowable reason when forcing a tenant to leave their home. The bill would have permitted evictions for virtually any legitimate reason, such as a tenant’s bad conduct, failure to perform obligations, or the landlord’s desire to do something different with their property. Despite this, and against the backdrop of our housing crisis, the bill lacked the legislative support needed to even come up for a vote on the Assembly floor.

Senate Bill 529, by Senator Maria Elena Durazo, which would have protected tenants’ right to organize in response to conditions in their buildings, failed by one vote. AB 36, by Assembly member Richard Bloom, which would have made basic reforms to restrictions on local rent control policies, wasn’t even debated in its first policy committee. And Assembly member David Chiu’s AB 1482, which would put a ceiling on rent increases, was significantly amended so that it could pass the Assembly floor.

Opportunities still remain for California’s legislature to demonstrate a serious commitment to tackling our homelessness crisis this year. AB 1482, despite recent amendments, will put the brakes on the most outrageous rent increases; there are numerous examples of tenants receiving increases doubling or even tripling their monthly rent.

Western Center is co-sponsoring another bill, SB 329 by Senator Holly Mitchell, to increase access to existing units for low-income renters who receive housing assistance — a proven solution to homelessness. The bill would add housing assistance as a protected source of income under our state’s anti-discrimination laws, meaning landlords could no longer discriminate against a housing applicant just because they get help to pay their rent. Similar policies have been adopted in local jurisdictions and other states, and have been shown to drastically improve access to quality housing for assisted families.

We should all be alarmed by rising homelessness in our communities. All of us are served by supportive communities where all our neighbors have a stable place to call home, and all of us are affected by the insecurity and instability wrought by rising rents and a lack of tenant protections. These are the factors that lead directly to rising homelessness, strains on our social service systems, and public health and safety issues — for sheltered and unsheltered residents alike. As we work to increase the production of needed affordable units – particularly at the lowest income levels – we must also ensure families are protected from rising rents, arbitrary eviction and discrimination, or we run the risk of continuing the cycle of homelessness and half measures.

Until we take the steps required to solve the problems leading to increased homelessness, we should not be shocked or stunned to see new neighbors living on the streets. What should alarm us all is the failure to implement proven solutions for the state, in the midst of a housing crisis that affects every single one of us.

California stopped suspending licenses for failures to pay traffic fines. Why do some drivers who can’t pay still have suspended licenses?

By Rebecca Miller, Western Center Senior Litigator

In 2016, low-income motorists – represented by Western Center and other law firms — sued the California Department of Motor Vehicles for suspending the driver’s licenses of individuals who couldn’t afford to pay traffic tickets. As the suit progressed, the California Legislature passed AB 103, which abolished the practice of suspending licenses for failure to pay fines, and eventually we successfully persuaded the DMV to lift existing failure to pay suspensions.

Abolishing suspensions for failures to pay was a huge win for Californians, and resulted in more than 200,000 people getting their license back. The progress made with failure to pay suspensions opened the door to address another issue facing primarily low-income Californians – license suspensions for failing to appear in court. While suspensions for failures to pay were repealed, courts can and do still suspend if someone doesn’t show up for their court date.

We have heard story after story of people affected by failure to appear license suspensions that they can’t clear. One man was forced to turn down a job that required a license because the court insisted he pay his tickets in full (money he doesn’t have because he is unemployed). Another woman, a disabled mother of four, is forced to drive without a license so she can take her kids to school and doctor’s appointments while she chips away at her balance $25 at a time. Neither driver was able to lift their failure to appear suspension without paying their tickets in full.

To address the conundrum, the City of San Francisco announced last month that it would reinstate licenses for people who failed to appear in court after finding that the primary reason drivers don’t appear is because they cannot afford to pay their tickets. Yet outside of San Francisco, there are lingering problems with notifications for failures to appear in court that continue to punish people for living in poverty.

Some courts reinstate a driver’s license once a person appears, but other courts keep the suspension in place until the court debt is paid — essentially treating failing to appear in court the same way as failing to pay a fine. Although no county is officially suspending licenses based on failure to pay notifications sent to the DMV, Californians in many counties experience a cycle that goes something like this:

Miss a traffic court deadline for a number of potential reasons: I don’t have a defense, I don’t have the money to pay the ticket, or I’m afraid because my experience with the judicial system has created a fear of courts and judges — especially if I’m a person of color. It’s also possible that I couldn’t get off work, or don’t have sufficient transportation to get to an inconveniently located traffic court. The court then sends a failure to appear notification to the DMV. Depending on the underlying traffic offense, after one or two failure to appear notifications, my license is suspended, but I still don’t have enough money to pay the fines and don’t know how to get my license back.

A few counties allow people to go to walk-in court to “appear” by admitting guilt and agreeing not to contest the ticket. The court then sends a failure to appear release to the DMV, and the person can get their license back, even with an outstanding balance. Other courts find people who don’t appear guilty in absentia and never send a notification to the DMV in the first place.

But some courts will not release a failure to appear notification until a person pays their ticket in full, or completes all of their community service. In these courts, there is no walk-in court or forms to let you “appear.”  Even if a person files an ability to pay request saying they can’t afford the ticket and need the cost reduced or to be put on a payment plan, the court doesn’t count it as an appearance. Essentially, courts in this category use failure to appear notifications to coerce people to pay tickets they can’t afford, even though the statute and legislative history only allow courts to use failure to appear suspensions to compel a driver to come to court and either admit guilt or contest the ticket.

The move by San Francisco to reinstate licenses suspended because a driver didn’t appear in traffic court is good policy. It acknowledges that failure to appear notices are not related to driving safety, and that most failures occur because drivers can’t afford their tickets. It also recognizes that driver’s license suspensions are harmful — most Californians need a driver’s license for work and to care for their families.

However, San Francisco’s decision to take action doesn’t resolve the legal question trapping drivers in some counties: when is a court required to lift a failure to appear suspension? Despite some counties’ answers to that question, the law is clear. Courts cannot use failing to appear to suspend a driver’s license for an unpaid ticket or incomplete community service, and they cannot prevent drivers from clearing a failure to appear license suspension if there is no clear way for drivers to “appear,” or if the definition of an appearance is too narrow.

To ensure the elimination of failure to pay suspensions is a reality for low-income Californians, Western Center and our partners will continue to challenge these unlawful practices.

GUEST BLOG: Understanding the impact of criminal administrative fees, and how solutions like SB 144 can move California toward a more equitable future

By Stephanie Campos-Bui

I am a supervising attorney in the Policy Advocacy Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law, where we have been researching fines and fees in the justice system since 2013.

In 2017, we worked closely with Senator Mitchell and then-Senator Lara on Senate Bill 190, co-sponsored by Western Center, Youth Justice Coalition, and PolicyLink, among others, which repealed county authority to charge juvenile fees to families of young people in California. One year into implementation of SB 190, all 58 counties have stopped charging juvenile fees.

Given what we learned about juvenile fees, we are now supporting research efforts on fee assessment and collection practices in the criminal (adult) justice system. We have already observed similar findings to those in the juvenile space.

The majority of fees currently charged to people who come into contact with the justice system were authorized during the 1980s and 90s during the War on Drugs, and when the state faced a multi-billion-dollar deficit — the Legislature turned to fine and fee revenue to fill funding holes.

As a result, the existing fee scheme in California is wide-reaching and overly complex. At nearly every point in the criminal legal process, California state law authorizes counties to charge fees. From booking and arrest, representation by a public defender, to court-ordered programs and probation supervision, an individual can face a host of fees, including for collection. Counties also have discretion on the amount charged, so practices vary widely across California. In San Diego County, an adult on probation for five years can be charged almost $12,000, but just miles over in neighboring Imperial County, they would be charged $1,700.

To protect individuals against excessive fees, state law allows, but does not mandate, counties to consider an individual’s income and resources before assessing fees. In many instances, counties do not conduct meaningful ability-to-pay determinations or any determinations at all, leaving individuals with bills they cannot afford and will never pay.

We saw this in the recent Court of Appeals decision, People v. Duenas, in which Western Center was involved on behalf of the defendant, Duenas. In that case, LA County failed to assess whether a single mother, Velia Duenas, could pay the fines and fees imposed against her. In addition to finding the county in violation of due process under the United States and California Constitution, the court recognized that “…imposing unpayable fines on indigent defendants is not only unfair, it serves no rational purpose, fails to further the legislative intent, and may be counterproductive.”

Our ongoing research has shown that the snowball effect of fees can cause significant economic and social harm, while generating low revenue. Fees can quickly add up to thousands of dollars, and once imposed, can become civil judgments, subjecting individuals to tax intercepts and wage garnishments, which impacts credit scores and limits access to stable employment, housing, education, and public benefits. A survey conducted by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights found that the average debt for fines and fees was $13,607.

According to a report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, people sometimes turn to underground communities or criminal activity to manage the financial strain of high outstanding fees. Studies have also found that criminal justice debt correlates with a greater likelihood of an individual returning to prison. Those negative outcomes not only harm public safety, but also makes reentry into society much harder.

Unsurprisingly, all of this disproportionately harms low-income people and people of color. Due to over-policing and targeted policing in communities of color, Black and Brown people are punished more frequently and harshly at a variety of discretion points, which leads to higher fee burdens.

Theoretically, fees are intended to help local jurisdictions recoup costs associated with the justice system. Yet counties often recover only a small proportion of what they assess. In Alameda County, the rate of collection on probation supervision fees during 2017 was 4%.  In San Francisco, the collections rate for probation fees in 2016 was 9%.

Such low return rates are not a result of lax collection efforts, but because most system-involved individuals are low-income and cannot afford to pay the fees. For example, in Humboldt County, eighty-four percent of people on probation had a monthly income of less than $1,000.

Additionally, counties spend significant resources trying to assess and collect fees. Records from LA County showed that in fiscal year 2017-18, the County spent $3.9 million to collect $3.4 million in probation fees, resulting in a loss of half a million dollars. Even in counties where collection costs don’t exceed revenue, the resources put toward collection efforts—both within county and to private agencies—do not result in significant returns. And fees are not just costly, they also crowd out spending on positive social goods like healthcare and education. The lack of investment in those areas imposes harm over time, prolongs and exacerbates poverty, and generates costs to families, communities, and society.

The good news is that we have already seen reform across the state. Los Angeles County eliminated its public defender registration fee in 2017 after recognizing the fee’s potential to dissuade people from using their constitutionally-guaranteed right to counsel. San Francisco County eliminated 12 criminal administrative fees and penalties in June 2018, discharging $32 million, and Alameda County ended the assessment and collection of five administrative fees in November 2018, discharging $43 million.

Statewide, SB 190 ended juvenile fee assessments as of January 1, 2018, and 36 of 58 counties opted to go beyond the requirements of the law by also ending collection on over $236 million in outstanding fees, which underscores the commitment counties have to doing right by the populations they serve.

This year, Senate Bill 144, co-sponsored by Western Center, ACLU California, East Bay Community Law Center, PolicyLink, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Youth Justice Coalition, and more, builds on these reform efforts by tackling the array of fees and costs charged to people in the criminal justice system. The bill addresses fees charged for booking and arrest, representation by counsel, diversion and alternative programming, probation, court-ordered programs and classes, drug and alcohol testing, collection fees, and civil assessments. The bill also seeks to end collection on unpaid fees and discharge and vacate outstanding debt.

The use of fines and fees has widened the reach and impact of the justice system to include more people, and has created long-lasting collateral consequences which ultimately serve the racially motivated underpinnings upon which our justice system was built—to control and marginalize black and brown communities. Fees and fines are not a reasonable answer for any of society’s problems — the criminal justice system should be funded by a more stable, predictable, and equitably-generated source of funding. SB 144 is a substantial step in that direction.