Executive Director, Bruce Iwasaki

Turning point

October, 2003

These election days are nerve wracking. In June 1978, when angry voters passed Proposition 13, a group of us met the morning after at the East L.A. office. I remember Pete Navarro shaking his head saying he felt like he had been beaten up. As we know, California has never been the same since, especially in the decline in our public education and public health systems. In 1994, when the Gingrich Congress swept in only two years after Clinton's election, and Proposition 187 passed, it was a gut-punch reading the handwriting on the wall for legal services funding. A year later, LAFLA had to lay off fifty-five people.

By tomorrow, maybe tonight, we will know what new journey we Californians have taken. And as the media likes to say * or threaten * if it happens here, it is likely to happen elsewhere in the country.

But tomorrow morning, no matter what happens, we will face stark realities for our clients.

Even if the recall and Proposition 54 are defeated, the state has lost nearly a year grappling with the critical problems of the budget and the economy, not to speak of longer term issues like our schools and housing. The budget impasse this past summer was resolved, but merely postponed the reckoning ahead with over $10 billion in borrowing and rosy revenue projections. Those conditions do not go away even if Gov. Davis remains in office.

And if Davis does hold onto his job, it will hardly be viewed as a vote of confidence. Rather, it will only be because enough voters change their mind on Schwarzenegger's fitness. Meanwhile, the deep divisions in the legislature -- mirroring real divisions in the body politic -- endure. The prospects of any fundamental reshaping our tax system to make the state budget less susceptible to the swings of the stock market are small. And other issues: providing more funds for childcare, developing work support systems for those who have left welfare, providing more health care for the uninsured, building affordable housing, don't even get mentioned.

Making Equal Justice a Priority Issue

And of course, access to justice was not even on any candidate's top forty as a campaign issue. On that point, we in legal services have our work cut out for us. I was commenting to a reporter yesterday that no political candidate can say: "I am going to do nothing to change our school system." Everyone has to promise more money, smaller classes, more education reform, whatever. They rarely deliver on the promise, but that is not the point. Education has to be mentioned. But no one even mentions our justice system. No one deplores the gross inequality of access to justice, or how legal aid and pro bono lawyers can only meet 30% of the legal needs of the poor.

It is not because the public opposes legal aid. Between 80% and 90% of the American public support the right of poor people to legal services. But we haven't yet convinced enough in Congress and the Legislature to fund legal services adequately. We need to separate how we practice equal justice from the image much of the public has of lawyers: that there are too many of them and too many frivolous lawsuits.

Instead, we must demonstrate that our work keeps families safer, makes children healthier, builds stronger communities, stops discrimination, and allows people to solve their legal problems under established rules. Most people believe in these things and are surprised to learn that legal aid lawyers can help. Our stories, our outcome measures, our involvement with community organizations and bar associations, our community outreach and media work, our publications and our board, are all essential to getting out this message and changing minds.

Short Term Dangers

Thus, even if nothing changes as a result of the election, the fundamental problems continue, and LAFLA's mission and messages also remain the same. But the Recall reflects deep frustration from voters disappointed in government's inability to solve problems, coupled with a perverse reluctance to support taxes needed to solve the problems. That frustration still exists and has been unleashed.

In California, at least since the 1880s, times of high unemployment and economic uncertainty have stirred racist, anti-immigrant, sentiments. Proposition 187 was the most recent example of that; we'll see what happens with Prop. 54. During such times our clients suffer politically as well as economically. Rules become more punitive, funding dries up, programs close down. The poor become very unpopular, and are blamed for their own condition.

We don't know what will happen if Schwarzenegger becomes governor. He hasn't said anything beyond simplistic pronouncements. But in general, his base of support could care less about the displacement of low-income neighborhoods, prescription drugs for senior citizens, or job training for laid off workers. During the next several years, low-income people will need advocates -- smart, bold and creative advocates -- more than ever. Ready?

BGI