Divorced from reality

ONE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY is that court proceedings have to be public. To close them is to invite funny business -- payoffs, sweetheart deals, favor trading -- that would undermine the fairness that our justice system strives for. Any argument for limited secrecy in court will stumble on this basic principle.

It is a principle our elected officials should keep in mind as they debate a bill that would seal court records in a divorce case. The bill, up for consideration in Sacramento this week, would personally benefit billionaire Ron Burkle, who has waged a dogged campaign to close court proceedings in divorce cases; his lavish political contributions have paved the way for its quick passage. Burkle is a California success story -- a guy who worked his way from bag boy to supermarket magnate. He may even have a point when he argues that there is no public benefit to releasing a person’s financial records in a divorce case.

But it is never good policy to write legislation for one person, as is the case here. And though many litigants may not like it, the judicial system as a whole benefits from more openness, not less. Nevada is the only state where court records can be sealed at the request of either party in a divorce case. Similarly, this bill would require that all documents with financial information be sealed if either party in a divorce case requests it, which removes a judge’s discretion. Further, it would allow privately paid arbiters, who operate outside the court system to negotiate terms of a settlement, to seal court records.

The Times, the California Newspaper Assn. and other organizations that defend open courts are lobbying against this bill. A similar bill, rushed through the Legislature in 2004, has since been ruled unconstitutional by two lower courts, and Burkle is appealing to the state Supreme Court. Meantime, state Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Culver City) has amended an unrelated bill to authorize the blacking out of financial records in a divorce case. Murray argues that defendants might be vulnerable to identity theft. That’s a hollow point. Judges in divorce cases routinely agree to keep identifying information out of court records.

Burkle’s ex-wife argues that shielding financial records enables him to hide millions in order to limit alimony payments. (She backed out of a 1997 divorce settlement, arguing that the agreed-upon $410,000 a month in alimony was not enough.) That’s for a judge to decide. What should be clear to legislators is that closing our court system violates the principle of openness and justice that benefits us all.