by Mark Flatten
February 4, 2019
Here’s your dilemma: You get arrested
for some “heinous” crime, something like spitting on the sidewalk or failing to
return a library book. The judge thinks there is a high risk that you might
spit again, or cling to that volume of city property, or commit some other
crime like smoking in a restricted area or littering. So he imposes bail of a
few hundred dollars just to make sure you don’t skip town. You are poor, too
poor to even raise that minimal sum.
And so you sit in jail. If you stay
there, you will miss work and lose your job. Your kids will have no way to get
to school. You will be separated from your family for who knows how long. Then
the prosecutor makes you an offer. If you plead guilty and agree to pay a fine,
you will be released. If you fight the charges, you will remain in jail for
weeks or months until your trial.
This is a choice that people across the
nation face every day in municipal courts. It’s happening in Corinth,
Mississippi, where bail practices are forcing poor defendants to
languish in jail awaiting trial, even though they are accused of minor
misdemeanors that probably would not result in jail time if the defendant is
convicted.
It’s happening in St.
Louis, Missouri, where civil rights and criminal justice reform
groups have filed a class action lawsuit challenging that city’s bail
practices, which effectively condemn people who have yet to be convicted to
jail because they are too poor to pay. Across the nation there is an
ever-growing concern that municipal courts have largely become
revenue-raising tools for cities rather than impartial dispensers of justice.
And it’s happening across the state of
Arizona, where certain city codes make spitting on the sidewalk and failing to
return a library book criminal misdemeanors. The Goldwater Institute recently
exposed the flaws in Arizona’s municipal court system in an eight-part series
called City Court: Costs and Consequences—you
can read the full series here. These
investigative reports show that city courts are a significant source of revenue
for cities, handling not just traffic offenses but also misdemeanors that carry
penalties of up to six months in jail and $2,500 in fines for each conviction.
In Arizona, you probably are not
entitled to a public defender to help you fight the criminal misdemeanor charges
against you, even if you cannot afford one. And even though you are facing six
months in jail, you most likely will not be entitled to a trial by jury,
despite two specific provisions in the state constitution saying you are. And
to top it all off, if you do try to fight the charges, your fate will be
determined by a judge appointed by and completely beholden to the city council,
not the voters. (The only exception is Yuma, where judges have been elected
since statehood.)
Criminal justice reform has become a hot
topic in America. Last December, President
Trump signed the First Step Act, an effort to give federal judges
more leeway in dealing with those convicted of certain non-violent crimes,
primarily drug offenses. The bill passed both chambers of Congress with
near-unanimous support on both sides of the political aisle.
As bipartisan efforts at criminal
justice reform are taking hold across the country, many are turning to the
damage done by misdemeanor convictions and the inequities of municipal courts. In
Arizona, the Legislature passed several reforms last year to mitigate some of
the most abusive laws dealing with misdemeanors, an effort driven in
large part by the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts, the
administrative branch of the state Supreme Court. Of particular note was a bill
that made driving on a suspended license a civil offense, rather than a
criminal misdemeanor, if the license was suspended for failing to pay traffic
tickets or show up for a traffic court hearing. As noted in the Goldwater
Institute reports, under the old law a person driving on a suspended license
faced arrest and jail, even when the underlying crime was nothing more serious
than an unpaid traffic fine. The bill passed both houses of the Legislature
unanimously.
One significant reform the Legislature
did not pass was a bill backed by the Goldwater Institute requiring municipal
court judges to face voters through an election. The intent of the proposal is
to ensure judicial independence by making city court judges answerable to the
people, not city politicians, said Goldwater Institute Vice President for
Litigation Timothy Sandefur. Similar legislation has been introduced again in
the current legislative session.
Without reforms, Sandefur said, city
courts in Arizona will remain the revenue-raising tools of cities, not
impartial dispensers of justice answerable to the people. “When judges answer
to the government, their ability to decide cases impartially is
hampered—sometimes even without them realizing it—and citizens lose their
confidence in the judicial system. Our courts need to be responsible to the
people, not to the government—and to the law. Our city court system runs
counter to this crucial limitation on government overreach, and it’s time for
it to be set straight.”
Mark Flatten is the National Investigative Journalist at
the Goldwater Institute.
