Subscribe Donate

Tag: money bail

Home | Newsroom |

Western Center’s 2020 Election Debrief

Americans and Californians have made it through another election, with big implications for the country’s future. Western Center extends a hearty congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden and California’s own, Kamala Harris, who will step into history as this country’s first Black American, Asian American, and woman to hold the office of Vice President of the United States. As a nonpartisan organization working toward racial justice in California and the United States, we cannot overstate the significance of this moment as part of the continued march toward a true representative government that reflects the population it serves.

Here in California, we voted on several important races and propositions on our 2020 ballot. Below is Western Center’s analysis of what some of those propositions mean for the future of California, and for the people we serve.

First, we must state our position that the California proposition system is incredibly flawed and fundamentally unjust. While popular vote sounds democratic, our proposition system allows wealthy interests to dictate and manipulate state law, often without full disclosure to voters, and at the expense of the most disenfranchised and marginalized people in our state and country. We believe the legislative process is the appropriate place for creating sound policy, not the proposition system.

______________________________________________________________________________________

PROPOSITION 15: Schools and Communities First – FAILED

Western Center supported Proposition 15, widely referred to as the property tax split roll, as an attempt to make headway in the fight to make California’s tax laws more just, and to chip away at the foundation that makes the state so economically unequal. In 1978, voters approved Prop 13, which limited property taxes on all property owners — commercial and residential, by capping taxes at 1.1 percent of the value of the property at the time it was purchased. While Prop 13 is often viewed as untouchable politically, it is a major source of wealth inequality and a prime example of structural racism, because it keeps taxes permanently low for those who are long time property owners (overwhelmingly white), but imposes a higher tax on those who bought property more recently (increasingly people of color). Prop 15’s failure means the unjust tax implications of Prop 13 remain untouched, and wealth distribution in California remains lopsided. At a time when significant revenue is needed to address the affordable housing crisis, homelessness, and improved public benefits programs, this is a significant loss in the fight for a more equal California.

PROPOSITION 16: Repeal Ban on Affirmative Action – FAILED

Western Center heartily supported this measure, and frankly, we are very disappointed with this outcome because of the unfortunate message it sends to California’s increasingly diverse population. Prop 16 would have reversed a 1996 initiative that banned affirmative action (the practice of establishing certain criteria that allows consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting) in all forms of state and local government. In practice, affirmative action is intended to level the playing field and reduce the effects of explicit and implicit bias. California, like the rest of the United States, was formed on a foundation of explicit white supremacy and patriarchy in law and society, which means active policies are required to obtain balance. The failure of Prop 16 this year means that the fight for true racial equity is more of an uphill battle in California than this progressive state would like to believe.

PROPOSITION 17: Right to Vote for People Who Were Formerly Incarcerated – PASSED

Western Center supported this measure, which restores the right to vote to Californians with a prior felony criminal conviction, provided they are not incarcerated. The additional punishment leveraged by state law before the passage of Prop 17 deprived 50,000 Californians of a fundamental right of all citizens. Western Center supported the measure because as we know from our work, the history of racism in our country has led to over-policing in communities of color, which means the pre-Prop 17 law unjustly dilutes their voting power.

PROPOSITION 18: Right to register to vote at age 17 – FAILED

Western Center supported Prop 18, which would have allowed eligible 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the next November general election to vote. Western Center supported Prop 18 because studies that show that pro-voting initiatives like this one encourage greater voter participation among young people, which is crucial for engaging younger generations into the political process, and because we think people who are old enough to vote in November should have the opportunity to make the initial choice for the November ballot in the primaries, even if they’re still 17. If the historic, high level of voter turnout among young people this year tells us anything, it’s that initiatives like this are likely to come back, because young people want their voices to be heard.

PROPOSITION 20: Restores Crimes and Limits Early Release – FAILED

Western Center opposed Prop 20, which would have reinstated certain theft crimes as felonies instead of misdemeanors, and made it harder for people convicted of felonies to be approved for parole. It also would have expanded collection of DNA samples from people charged with crimes, and from youth. The failure of this measure sends a strong statement to California policy makers that voters are satisfied with the reforms already passed, and suggests that they are ready for more. We are pleased with this outcome and know that it will lead to increased support for further criminal justice reform efforts.  

PROPOSITION 21: Reduce State Limits on Local Rent Control – FAILED

Western Center supported Prop 21, which proposed several changes to a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Act, limiting ability of local governments to control the cost of rental housing, by allowing rent control on units older than 15 years and allowing local governments to restrict rent increases on units when a tenant moves out. Western Center has never supported Costa-Hawkins and was a major opponent to the policy for the past 25 years. A measure similar to Prop 21 failed in 2018, and since then there has been a spike in rent across California and significant increases in homelessness. With COVID-19 causing many tenants to be unable to pay the high cost of rent in California, it is necessary to pass meaningful limits on rental housing costs. The failure of this measure marks yet another setback in the fight for more affordable housing in California and to keep people housed when they are on the brink of homelessness. The Legislature must address this issue, or the state will continue to see increases in homelessness.

PROPOSITION 22: Repeals Worker Protections for App-based Rideshare Workers – PASSED

Western Center opposed Prop 22. This proposition repeals a portion of Assembly Bill 5, which was passed by the Legislature last year to require that companies employing so called “independent contractors” instead classify workers as employees. When workers are classified as employees, companies must provide basic worker protections like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, health coverage, minimum wage, sick pay, overtime and social security. Western Center supported AB 5 because many app-based workers are not receiving a fair wage or minimum worker protections. When they can’t work, they’re often left with nothing, and as a result, they sometimes end up on public assistance and in crisis, as the companies they work for experience record profit. Income inequality is one of the most important issues of our time; the average pay of corporate CEOs is now 321 times more than the typical worker they employ, and the use of independent contractors is accelerating that trend by allowing companies to keep money normally used to provide basic employment services for themselves.

Western Center is strongly opposed to Prop 22, and we are disheartened that it passed for a number of reasons. App-based companies leveraged a multi-million-dollar campaign to draft and pass this initiative so they don’t have to provide basic worker protections, which is money they could have used to provide those protections. Uber also used that money to defend against a lawsuit brought by drivers claiming the company coerced them into supporting the measure. The way the Prop 22 campaign played out exemplifies the deep flaws with California’s proposition system, which allows wealthy interests to dictate and manipulate state law. As long as there is money to spend, those interests can play fast and loose with their claims and campaign messages, to the detriment of people who don’t have the same means.

PROPOSITION 24: Use of Personal Data by Private Business – PASSED

This measure, which Western Center opposed, makes changes to California law regarding how personal information collected by corporations and data firms can be used and shared. It overrides elements of a 2018 “landmark” privacy law that limited the use of data sharing. Prop 24 allows data collectors to use “neighborhood scores” in determining a person’s credit worthiness, which means a person’s credit could be lower because of the community they live in. Prop 24 also reduces the number of companies subject to the law. It takes regulation for privacy breaches away from the state Attorney General and shifts it to a newly created state agency with capped funding. Western Center was against Prop 24, along with a host of consumer organizations. We support strong consumer protections, but believe the legislative process, not the proposition process, is the appropriate forum for making changes to state law.

PROPOSITION 25: Repeal State Law Eliminating Money Bail – FAILED

Prop 25’s failure overturns Senate Bill 10, which passed the California Legislature in 2018 and would have eliminated the use of money bail in California in determining who is detained in jail pending a trial to determine their guilt or innocence. Western Center was a co-sponsor of SB 10 because the money bail system benefits those with wealth, while people with fewer resources (again, disproportionately people of color) often languish in jail for lengthy periods of time, losing jobs, housing, family, health and sometimes life while in jail. To avoid these consequences, people will often accept a plea deal rather than fight for their innocence in order to be released.

Western Center was a strong supporter of Prop 25, and we are frustrated by its failure. We understand the very real concerns about replacing money bail with the “risk assessment” algorithm system, as there is noted bias in that system, but risk assessment tools are already used in 44 California counties in addition to money bail. What’s more, Western Center sponsored Senate Bill 36, which will be enacted in 2021, to require that any risk assessment used by a court be certified as bias-free. Independent research on Prop 25 found that it would keep thousands of people out of jail pre-trial, and would end the collection of $6 Billion in bail bonds from Californians with little to no wealth. Prop 25 also would have eliminated the bail bonds lobby, which contributes to pro-incarceration measures like Prop 20. The California Supreme Court is currently deliberating two cases in which the plaintiffs claim that the state and federal constitutions prohibit a trial court from setting bail in amounts that criminal defendants are unable to pay. We hope the Court will require lower courts to prevent incarceration of someone pending their trial simply because they can’t afford bail. 

 

 

 

Criminal-Justice Reform on CA Ballot in November

“Mike Herald, policy director with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said cash bail is very punitive for low-income defendants.

“Many people ended up getting held in jail for months on end simply because they didn’t have the money to be able to get out on bail,” Herald said. “And then other folks who did get out on bail often were stuck with very large bills.”

Read More

 

Vote Yes on Proposition 25 to Interrupt the Poverty to Prison Pipeline and Significantly Reduce Pre-Trial Detention

In California’s money bail system, people brought to jail on charges of a misdemeanor or felony offence are required to pay money to secure release as they await trial. What that means in practice is that people with money get out of jail, and people without it don’t. But sitting in jail isn’t like waiting at the DMV – jail is, more often than not, a deeply traumatizing experience. Sometimes even deadly.

The amount of money a person can access shouldn’t determine whether the state gets to inflict irreparable harm on them via incarceration. That’s why Western Center supports Proposition 25 to end money bail in California.

Here’s how money bail works…

People who can pay the full bail amount pay directly to the court, which averages around $50,000, and they get it all back when they show up for court. People who can’t pay the full bail fall into two categories: (1) people who can scrape together enough, sometimes through friends and family, to pay a bail agent for a bail bond — usually about 10 percent of the bail amount; and (2) people who don’t have or know anyone with 10 percent of the bail amount and are held in jail until trial. It’s estimated that on any given day, nearly 50,000 Californians end up in this second category — accused of a crime, not convicted, but still sitting in jail because they can’t afford to pay.

For people with just enough to purchase a bail bond, even when they return to court to face their charges, they don’t get their money back since bail bonds are usually nonrefundable. That’s true even when charges are dropped or a person is determined to be innocent.

A Yes vote on Proposition 25 will end money bail in California, and restore $6 billion to low-wealth California communities that are preyed upon by the bail industry. Ending money bail will remove judicial discretion for people charged with most misdemeanors and require that they be sent home in under 13 hours, which we hope will encourage closer examination of who is arrested for misdemeanors, and whether certain misdemeanors should exist in the first place (for example, being “boisterous” on a bus can be a misdemeanor in California).

These are difficult conversations to have in California’s capitol, where $3 million in bail industry profits were used to help elect legislators who oppose not only repealing money bail, but also the reduction of pre-trial detention and the carceral state. Because of that, the legislature is squeamish on this issue, so Prop 25 could be the last opportunity California has for a long time to end money bail and work toward a more just system.

The $6 billion dollar California Money Bail industry preys on low-income communities, and impacts Black and Brown people and communities most. Nationally, Black people are detained at a rate five times higher than white people,[i] and Black defendants are less likely to be released on their own recognizance than white defendants.[ii] Black defendants ages 18 through 29 also receive higher bail amounts than any other group.[iii] It’s all made worse because Black Americans have A LOT less wealth to begin with, so Black people charged with a crime — whether a misdemeanor or a felony — are much more likely to have to stay in jail while waiting for trial, which increases the likelihood of conviction or going into debt with a bail agent.

In California, the billions of dollars the bail industry takes from people with little to no wealth translates to money people can’t spend on basic needs, education, health, or any other resource to get out of poverty. What’s worse, since people often borrow from friends and family to pay their bond, it can create conflict and tension within families, complicating already difficult situations. Sometimes, families have to put up their home, if they have one, for collateral to a bail agent to secure freedom for their loved one, which undermines homeownership and asset building in low-income communities of color.

For people without enough wealth or access for bail, and even with a bail bond, a stay in jail can be lengthy. It should surprise no one that jail is a dangerous and inhospitable place, where people endure sexual assault and other forms of abuse from guards and other people who are incarcerated, and where maintaining one’s health, including mental health, is difficult, if not impossible. Additionally, people held in jail while awaiting trial are more likely to have immigration officials called on them. But that’s not all: other life-altering consequences experienced by people in jail waiting for their trial include losing their homes, their cars, their children or other people they care for, their jobs, their health and so much more. As a result, many plead guilty for crimes they didn’t commit just so they can leave jail rather than wait for trial.

The money bail system is used in many ways that perversely perpetuates the criminalization of poverty. Prosecutors often ask judges to detain individuals with a high bail as leverage to convince people with low-incomes to enter a plea bargain.[iv] To give a sense of how big the problem is, in 2006, 96 percent of convictions were the result of guilty pleas — only four percent of convictions resulted from actual trials.[v] People incarcerated while awaiting trial are more likely to be convicted (even when innocent); receive harsher sentences, including more time in jail or prison; face injury or contract a serious (and costly) disease; and are more likely to return to the criminal justice system in the future.[vi]

Some critics of Proposition 25 are concerned that too much power will be placed within the computerized risk assessment tools that are to replace money bail. We are concerned about that too, which is why we sponsored Senate Bill 36 last year to require race and equity data to be collected, shared with the public, and monitored to mitigate racial bias in each risk assessment tool. Between the requirements set in Proposition 25 and SB 36, California will have some of the most robust protections against racially-biased decision making for pre-trial detention in the country, and we will be the first to end all monetary conditions of pre-trial release. Wealth is one of the most racist algorithms that exists in America, and one of the most fixed. Proposition 25 is an essential step forward in making our pre-trial decisions less racially biased.

We know that even after Proposition 25 passes, we have a lot of work to do to ensure it is implemented with diligence and equity, and that we continue to build a more just pre-trial system that treats everyone as innocent until proven guilty. Western Center is committed to this work in strong partnership with the system-impacted-person led organizations leading the way.

Please join us and leaders across the state in voting Yes on Proposition 25. Go to https://yesoncaprop25.com/ for more information and read the  text of the proposed law. Video panels are also available on the subject: Prop 25 Community Forum Recording (SEIU);  Yes on Prop 25  (Anti-Recidivism Coalition); Yes on Prop 25 (Yes on 25 Campaign).


 

[i]JUSTICE POL’Y INST., supra note XX, at 15.

[ii] JOHN WOOLDREDGE, DISTINGUISHING RACE EFFECTS ON PRETRIAL RELEASE AND SENTENCING DECISIONS, JUSTICE QUARTERLY, 29 (2012).

[iii] JOHN WOOLDREDGE, supra note 9, at 29.

[iv] JUSTICE POL’Y INST., 25

[v] Cal.STATE COURT PROCESSING, FELONY DEFENDANTS IN LARGE URBAN COUNTIES REPORTS 1992-2006

[vi] ARPIT GUPTA, CHRISTOPHER HANSMAN, & ETHAN FRENCHMAN, THE HEAVY COSTS OF HIGH BAIL: EVIDENCE FROM JUDGE RANDOMIZATION 2 (2016); LAURA & JOHN ARNOLD FOUND, PRETRIAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH 3 (2013).

Western Center’s 2020 Proposition Guide

Californians are voting on important propositions on the 2020 California ballot right now. We know it’s confusing, so below you’ll find our guide to the propositions. All of our work, and how we see these propositions, centers around creating greater economic and racial justice, especially for people in California oppressed by poverty.

For more information to help navigate the propositions, we highly recommend the CalMatters proposition guide. If you prefer video, they have one-minute video explanations of each.

*For a PDF of this document, click here.                

PROPOSITION BREAKDOWN


PROPOSITION 14: $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Research Bond

Western Center Position: No Position


PROPOSITION 15: Schools and Communities First

Prop 15 is widely referred to as the property tax split roll. In 1978, voters approved Prop 13 which limited property taxes on all property owners, both commercial and residential, by capping taxes at 1.1 percent of the value of the property at the time it was purchased. While Prop 13 is often viewed as untouchable politically, in truth it is a major source of wealth inequality and a prime example of structural racism, because it keeps taxes permanently low for those who are long time property owners (overwhelmingly white), but imposes a higher tax on those who bought property more recently (increasingly people of color). Prop 15 would not fix all the problems created by Prop 13 but it would fix one, by setting commercial property taxes based on the current value of the property, not the original sale price. This would increase property taxes by $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion annually. 60 percent of this would go to cities, counties, and special districts and 40 percent would go to schools.

Western Center Position: YES

Prop 15 would take the first step toward restoring fairness to California’s property tax system. It would provide significant revenue which can be used for affordable housing, eliminating homelessness, and providing public benefits. It would increase funding for K-14 schools. It would make it easier for new business to compete with established businesses by making all businesses pay taxes based on market rates.


PROPOSITION 16: Repeal Ban on Affirmative Action 

This measure would reverse a 1996 initiative approved by California voters to ban the use of affirmative action in all forms of state and local government. Affirmative action is the practice of establishing certain criteria that allows consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting. The goal of affirmative action is to ensure that all people, regardless of their background, have a meaningful opportunity to benefit from government programs. In practice, affirmative action is intended to level the playing field and reduce the effects of explicit and implicit bias.

Western Center Position: YES

Western Center supported the bill when it was under consideration in the Legislature because it is consistent with our long standing principles of ensuring that California is an inclusive and equitable state. California, like the rest of the United States, was formed on a foundation of explicit white supremacy and patriarchy in law and society, which means active policies are required to obtain balance. The more that all segments of our community have the opportunity to receive the benefits of government, the less likely it is that bias will continue to be prevalent.

Western Center staff attorney Helen Tran explains more in this blog post.


PROPOSITION 17: Right to Vote for People Who Were Formerly Incarcerated

This measure would allow Californians with a prior felony criminal conviction to be able to vote in California. Currently, a person convicted of a felony cannot vote while incarcerated or on parole. If a formerly incarcerated person on parole registers to vote or votes, that can be grounds to revoke their parole and return them to prison, even if they are otherwise abiding by all other terms of their parole. The current law acts as an additional punishment on the formerly incarcerated after they have served their time and deprives them of a fundamental right of all citizens.

Western Center Position: YES

Western Center supported this bill when it went through the Legislature because current law disenfranchises people from exercising the fundamental right to vote. As we know from our work, the history of racism in our country has led to over-policing of communities of color. Thus, this law disproportionally impacts Black and Brown communities and dilutes their voting power.


PROPOSITION 18: Right to register to vote at age 17

As it currently stands, a person can register to vote in California if they’re a U.S. citizen at least 18 years old and a resident of the state. Registered voters can also run for elective office as long as they meet all other eligibility requirements. A person can pre-register to vote when they are either 16 or 17 years old. When a person pre-registers, they are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18. If passed, Prop 18 would allow eligible 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the next November general election to vote. Those 17-year-olds could vote in any special election or primary election before the next general election. The measure also means that 17-year-olds who turn 18 by the next general election could run for office if they meet all other eligibility requirements.

Western Center Position: YES

People decide who will be on the November ballot in primaries earlier in the year. People old enough to vote in November should have the opportunity to make that initial choice for the November ballot in the primaries, even if they’re still 17. There are also studies that show that pro-voting initiatives like this encourage greater voter participation among young people, which is crucial for engaging younger generations into the political process.


PROPOSITION 19: Change in Property Tax Rule

This initiative makes changes to property taxes when people move or inherit property. Currently, persons over age 55 and those living with disabilities can move to another home and not see their taxes go up if the new property is equal to or less than the house they moved from. This initiative would expand the ability of older and disabled property owners to move and not pay higher taxes. It limits the ability of people to inherit property unless an inheriting family member lives at the property or if the property is worth more than $1 million more than the assessed value of the house. Overall, the measure would result in increased revenue of tens of millions annually. This revenue would go to fire protection and schools.

Western Center Position: No Position

While this measure would result in some increased revenue it would not provide meaningful resources for health, welfare and housing programs. Proponents have asked Western Center to support but most major progressive groups are not supporting the measure.


PROPOSITION 20: Restores Crimes and Limits Early Release

This initiative proposes to repeal portions of criminal reform initiatives passed by voters (Prop 47 in 2014 and Prop 57 in 2016). If approved, Prop 20 would reinstate certain theft crimes as felonies instead of misdemeanors, and make it harder for people convicted of felonies to be approved for parole. It also expands collection of DNA samples from people charged with crimes, and from youth.

Western Center Position: NO

This measure would disproportionally and negatively impact people of color and low income Californians. In a time when large segments of the population are seeking a reduced criminal justice footprint, this initiative is moving in the opposite direction. Increasing the number of people with felony convictions will harm individuals, communities, and ultimately, our entire society, by making reentry into community much harder. It’s harder to get a job and find a place to live with a felony conviction, and as it stands now and unless Prop 17 passes, people with felony convictions who are in prison or on parole can’t vote. This initiative will needlessly place more people into these oppressive circumstances, exacerbating California’s existing income and racial inequality and its housing/ homelessness crises, which means greater instability for our state.


PROPOSITION 21: Reduce State Limits on Local Rent Control  

This measure proposes to make several changes to a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Act. That law strictly limits how local governments can control the cost of rental housing. It bars rent control on most single family homes, bars rent control on units built after 1995, and allows landlords to increase rent on a unit whenever a tenant moves out. Western Center was a major opponent of this law when it was proposed and has remained so for the past 25 years. Prop 21 proposes to modify the Costa Hawkins Act by allowing rent control on units that are older than 15 years, including some single family homes, and it allows local governments to restrict rent increases on units when a tenant moves out.

Western Center Position: YES

A similar measure was on the 2018 ballot but failed. Since then there has been a spike in rent across California and significant increases in homelessness. With COVID-19 causing many tenants to be unable to pay the high cost of rent in California, it is necessary to pass meaningful limits on rental housing costs.


PROPOSITION 22: Repeals Worker Protections for App-based Rideshare Workers

This measure proposes to repeal a portion of AB 5 that was passed by the Legislature last year to require that companies employing so called “independent contractors” instead classify workers as employees. Doing so means the companies must provide basic worker protections like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, health coverage, minimum wage, sick pay, overtime and social security. Large internet based corporations like Lyft, Uber, and Door Dash are proposing to eliminate these protections provided in AB 5. Western Center supported the bill because many drivers for these companies are not receiving a fair wage or minimum worker protections. When they are unable to drive, they are often left with nothing because as independent contractors, their employers are not required to pay into these systems. As a result, they often end up on public assistance and in crisis, meanwhile the companies experience record profit. Prop 22 would allow workers to remain independent contractors, and proposes that in lieu of traditional employee benefits, rideshare workers receive a menu of watered down worker protections.

Western Center Position: NO

Income inequality is quickly becoming one of the most important issues of our time. The average pay of corporate CEOs is now 321 times more than the typical worker they employ. The use of independent contractors is accelerating this trend by allowing companies to keep money normally used to provide basic employment services for themselves. App based companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pass Prop 22, which is money they could be spending on basic worker protections, since workers make the companies possible.


PROPOSITION 23: Kidney Dialysis Requirements

Western Center Position: No Position


PROPOSITION 24: Use of Personal Data by Private Business

This measure makes a host of changes to California law regarding how personal information collected by corporations and data firms can be used and shared. This bill overrides elements of a 2018 “landmark” privacy law that limited the use of data sharing. Significantly, Prop 24 allows data collectors to use “neighborhood scores” in determining a person’s credit worthiness, which means a person’s credit could be lower because of the community they live in. Prop 24 reduces the number of companies subject to the law. It takes regulation for privacy breaches away from the state Attorney General and shifts it to a newly created state agency with capped funding. It also limits the ability of the Legislature to decide how penalties collected by the state can be used by earmarking most penalty funds away from the General Fund.

Western Center Position: NO

A host of consumer organizations are opposing this measure and they have asked Western Center to join them in opposing. Some background context: a wealthy developer named Alastair Mctagart pulled a privacy initiative off the ballot in 2018 after the Legislature passed a privacy bill; he then submitted a new initiative that both strengthens and weakens the existing law. Western Center supports strong consumer protections and believes the legislative process, not the proposition process, is the appropriate forum for making changes to the law.


PROPOSITION 25: Repeal State Law Eliminating Money Bail

Prop 25 is a referendum to overturn a bill, SB 10, which was passed in 2018 by the Legislature to eliminate the use of the money bail system in California. Under the money bail system, judges allow people to be released from jail before trial if they pay a bond to secure their appearance at trial. Many people can’t afford bond and turn to bail bonds agencies to pay; people are then required to pay the agency 10 percent of the bond amount. That amount is non-refundable even if the person is acquitted or the charges are dropped. Data shows that the money bail system benefits those with wealth who can afford their own bail, while people with fewer resources often languish in jail for lengthy periods of time. In 2018 the Legislature passed SB 10 to eliminate this system and replace it with a system of release based on a “risk assessment” tool. Under this bill, the financial resources of the accused are not a factor in their release. Western Center was a co-sponsor of SB 10.

Western Center Position: YES

To support the bill that was passed to eliminate money bail, a person must vote “Yes.” The referendum is essentially asking you to consider this as if you were a legislator deciding to support the bill. Western Center co-sponsored SB 10, and now urges a “Yes” vote for Prop 25. We understand the very real concerns about replacing money bail with the “risk assessment” algorithm system, as there is noted bias in that system. However, we feel it’s likely that this is the only real opportunity to eliminate money bail in California, which disproportionately harms communities of color. If Prop 25 passes, it will be easier to address imperfections in the algorithm system than it will be to get the Legislature to take up ending money bail again.

Western Center policy advocate Jessica Bartholow explains more in this blog post.


  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should California end cash bail? Ads begin for November ballot fight

“COVID-19 revealed just how quickly that could change, advocates say. When California eliminated bail for low-level crimes to reduce health risks for detainees, some jail populations shrank by 60 percent, said Jessica Bartholow, Policy Advocate for Western Center on Law & Poverty. Overall, the state jailed about one-third fewer people.”

Read More

Reaction to the Judicial Council Reducing Bail to Zero

Jessica Bartholow, policy advocate at Western Center: Ending money bail has been a long-time advocacy position of Western Center and we are grateful for this temporary pause of the unconstitutional practice of denying people freedom while they await trial unless they can afford to pay bail.”

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2020/04/reaction-to-the-judicial-council-reducing-bail-to-zero/

California Courts set emergency bail schedule to $0 for most offenses

The Judicial Council, the head of California Courts, has issued new rules during COVID-19, requiring an emergency bail schedule during the pandemic.

The new rule sets bail for people accused of a misdemeanor or low-level felony at $0 while they await trial. It names 13 felony violations that are exempt to the rule in which a judge can still use the county bail schedule, and references their state constitutional authority to deny bail under certain circumstances.

“Ending money bail has been a long-time advocacy position of Western Center and we are grateful for this temporary pause of the unconstitutional practice of denying people freedom while they await trial unless they can afford to pay bail,” said Jessica Bartholow, policy advocate at Western Center. “We are hopeful that the Judicial Council will ensure that bail data collected during this time, which is required by Senate Bill 36 and is intended to prevent and document racial bias in pre-trial jail detention decisions, will still be pursued and reported to the Legislature during the pandemic, and that the Council will work to permanently end money bail beyond the pandemic.”

“The Judicial Counsel’s decision to set an emergency bail schedule to $0, for most offenses, will save lives,” said Michael Mendoza, National Director at #cut50, a program of the Dream Corps. “We at #cut50 welcome this temporary solution during this pandemic and look forward to ending the practice of money bail as we move past the immediate risk of COVID-19’s rapid spread and toward a justice system that prioritizes healing and restoration over punishment. More needs to be done beyond this temporary measure to keep people in jails and prisons safe – and to reduce the number of people behind bars. We urge all local, state and federal lawmakers to continue taking urgent steps now, before more lives are needlessly lost.”

Governor approves bill to improve pretrial practices

Earlier this month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 36, written by Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys), which regulates the use of pretrial risk assessment tools.

…“Money bail is unjust and unconstitutional and California’s justice system is failing us by allowing it to continue,” said Jessica Bartholow, of the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “We are proud to support efforts to end money bail, but know that replacing it with a process that uses algorithms to determine whether a person is eligible for pretrial release leaves the system vulnerable to racism, classism and ableism. SB 36 is an important next step to de-incarcerating people prior to their determination of guilt and to making sure [we] do this without bias impacting the outcome. We are grateful for its signature.”

Read more

This will close in 0 seconds