Local Elections : Judges Warn of Court ‘Gridlock’ If Measure to Lift Gann Lid Loses

Judges and court administrators warned Tuesday that San Diego’s overloaded criminal justice system will be paralyzed by “gridlock” unless voters approve a ballot measure to temporarily increase county government’s annual spending limit.

At a highly unusual press conference on the downtown County Courthouse steps, the presiding judges of San Diego’s Municipal and Superior courts said they will lose 17 new judicial positions and $25 million in state funds unless Proposition A passes next week.

Lengthy Delays Seen

Superior Court Judge Michael Greer said a mushrooming criminal caseload has overwhelmed the bench and that without more judges there will be staggering delays for those seeking to litigate civil matters.

“If we don’t get these judges, we will be at what I call civil gridlock,” Greer said. “We will be trying only criminal cases because by law they get priority. . . . That means you can’t get a divorce. That means, if you are an injured person, you can’t get a settlement from an insurance company.”

The so-called Gann limit was approved by state voters in 1979 to restrict government spending under a formula linked to population growth and the inflation rate. Proposition A on the Tuesday ballot would raise that spending limit to allow local officials to use all funds generated by taxes and state grants.

Should the measure fail, the Gann limit could reduce county revenues by at least $2.2 million overall this year, adding dramatically to its financial woes. It also would bar court officials from accepting the $25 million and the 17 new judicial positions--both of which were earmarked for San Diego under recent legislation providing state funds for trial courts.

Tuesday’s press conference, considered extraordinary because judges usually steer clear of campaigning, was indicative of how urgent Proposition A proponents believe their message to be. A similar proposition on the April ballot was narrowly defeated, and campaign officials believe voters in the spring election simply did not understand what the Gann waiver was all about.

“It’s a very, very important issue for San Diego because this is money that is waiting for us but will be spent elsewhere if we don’t approve this waiver,” said Lance Abbott, manager of the Proposition A campaign. “We feel everyone would agree San Diego should get its fair share of this money if they understood the proposition.”

Opponents, however, describe as “unprecedented arrogance” the county’s placement of the Gann waiver on the ballot a second time. Dick Rider, vice chairman of the San Diego County Libertarian Party, said it is clear that county officials “intend to try to browbeat the people into accepting this thing.”

“In the last 12 months, San Diego County has had two half-cent sales-tax increases, raising $160 million apiece--one for roads and one for construction of jails and courts and the operation of those facilities,” Rider said. “That money greatly relieves the county of two financial obligations. But they still claim they can’t get by with the spending restriction. It’s ridiculous.”

To date, proponents of Proposition A said they have raised $50,000 in the campaign, spending much of it on radio advertisements. Other outreach efforts have included a speakers bureau providing people to address community groups and press conferences by county supervisors.

The judges’ appearance was designed to illuminate the consequences of the measure’s failure for the local criminal justice system, which is struggling to shoulder an ever-rising number of criminal and civil cases.

Statistics show that the number of criminal cases filed in Superior Court has risen 56% from 1983, from about 6,600 to 10,300. Greer said the swelling burden means he must frequently shift judges from other departments--Family Court, for example--to hear criminal matters.

Civil Cases Affected

The criminal demand also means that fewer jurists are available to hear civil cases. Greer warned that a new program to reduce the delays that civil litigants experience in getting their cases to trial--a process known as “fast track”--will be in jeopardy if Proposition A fails.

Greer was also concerned about the lack of judges available to hear cases in Juvenile Court. The number of child-abuse and neglect cases heard there has increased 101% since 1983.

“We have a very, very serious problem with these dependency cases” in which a child is made a dependent of the court, Greer said. “These aren’t delinquents we’re talking about, these are victims.”

Presiding Municipal Judge H. Ronald Domnitz said that, without the additional resources Proposition A would provide, the aggravating waits typical at traffic court and small-claims court will get worse.

“I do not need to tell any of the public what it’s like to encounter a two-hour wait just to pay a traffic ticket,” Domnitz said.

A study by the California Judicial Council buttresses the judges’ argument that more bodies are needed.

Even if the local bench received the 17 new judges--13 would go to Superior Court, 3 to San Diego Municipal Court and 1 to North County Municipal Court--it would still be chronically understaffed, according to the study.

The study estimates that San Diego needs 91 Superior Court judges to handle its caseload. The court now does the job with 58 jurists. A similar, year-old study of San Diego Municipal Court shows that its caseload merits 37 judges; instead, 25 judges shoulder the burden.