NLPC’s extensive investigation of the judicial antics of California
legal services groups funded by the federal Legal Services Corporation
yields numerous examples of abuse.
Welfare Residency Requirement Scuttled
In 1993, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo was one of three groups that stopped California from enforcing a law that lowers welfare benefits for newcomers to the state. The residency requirement, enacted into law in December 1992, mandated that people who had lived in the state less than 12 months could not receive AFDC payments in excess of the payments they would have received in their previous state. Governor Wilson and the state legislature sought the measure to discourage individuals from migrating to the state in order to receive generous welfare. California has the second highest welfare benefits in the nation.The state estimated that the residency requirement would have saved the state $10 million in the first year. However, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo, the American Civil Liberties Union and a welfare rights group persuaded a federal judge to strike down the measure on the grounds that it violated the poor’s constitutional right to travel.
See Valerie Richardson, “California Cost-Cutter Hammered
by U.S. Court,” The Washington Times, January 30, 1993, pg. A4
School District’s Uniform Policy Sued by Legal Services Group
The Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach and the American Civil Liberties
Union are suing Long Beach public schools for requiring students to wear
uniforms. Long Beach adopted the policy for the 1994-1995 school year in
response to parental concerns about their children being attacked for inadvertently
wearing gang paraphanelia. The uniform code has been tremendously successful
according to school administrators and academic researchers. Fighting has
dropped 51%; drug cases are down 69%; sex offenses down 74%. Parents and
officials cite a number of reasons for the uniform code’s salutary effect
including reducing the differences between ethnic groups and between rich
and poor. The overwhelming majority of parents and even students support
the code. Attorney General Janet Reno recently visited the district praising
the uniform code’s impact. However, all Legal Aid could do was file a lawsuit
complaining that it imposes a monetary hardship on poor families. This
ignored the fact that the school district goes out of its way to provide
uniforms.
See Kathryn Wexler, “Sizing Up A Uniform Answer,” The Washington
Post, November 8, 1995, pg. A3
CRLA Overturns Governor’s Line-Item Veto
In 1990, California Rural Legal Assistance prevented Governor Deukmejian
from cutting $24 million in funds for family planning clinics which provided
a range of medical services to poor women including abortions. Governor
Deukmejian used his line-item veto to cut the funds as part of his overall
effort to control spending. However, California Rural Legal Assistance
claimed the cuts illegally deprived health care to poor women. The Governor
gave up and allowed the money to be appropriated after CRLA tied up the
proposed cuts in lengthy litigation.The state complained that CRLA’s actions
were an unconstitutional intrusion upon the authority of the Governor and
the legislature.
See Philip Hager, “State Fights Order to Restore Clinic Funds,”
Los Angeles Times, January 6, 1990, pg. A30; Miles Corwin, “Firm that Beat
Governor Ma y Lose Funds,” Los Angeles Times, pg. A3
Beggars Can Be Choosers
In 1992, Legal Aid of Marin won a court ruling which required the Marin
county government to allow homeless people who refused to live in a county-run
shelter to live on the grounds of a civic center. The county and other
organizations spent $650,000 to set up a winter shelter on the campus of
World College West which would provide counseling and mental health
services. However, that was not good enough for many homeless people because
it had “a lot of rules to control people.” Legal Aid said they would seek
an even broader ruling that would allow the homeless legal access to public
property.
See Diane Curtis, “Marin Homeless Go to Court,” The San Francisco
Chronicle, November 20, 1992, pg. A25
Legal Services Harasses Homeless Shelter
The Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach lent its assistance to a group
of homeless activists who were harassing a homeless shelter because they
thought its rules too strict. In exchange for housing and food, the Family
Shelter for the Homeless of Long Beach required that individuals adhere
to a strict routine such as performing chores, showing up for meals on
time and spending three hours a day seeking employment. A recently formed
group of homeless activists complained to Legal Aid about the “oppressive"
rules which responded by demanding an accounting of the shelter’s funding.
The shelter’s director said all they were trying to do was help the homeless
“restore structure to their unstructured lives.”
See Faye Fiore, “Homeless Say Shelter’s Rules Are Too Strict,”
Los Angeles Times, January 25, 1990, pg. J1
Long Beach City Councilmen Sued for Sending Letter
In 1994, the Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach sued five Long Beach
city council members for sending a letter to the federal government stating
their opposition to turning a navy complex into housing for the homeless.
Legal Aid said the councilmen violated an open-meeting law. One councilman
called it “absurd.” “Take this to its logical conclusion,” he said, “and
you’ll see that council members couldn’t even sign a birthday card without
breaking the law.”
See Emily Adams, “Long Beach Judge Rules Council Violated Brown
Act,” Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1994, pg. J2