New law aims to address gender bias in California court proceedings

Do California courts treat women more harshly? That is the premise of a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed this week. SB 1356 will require the Judicial Council "to consider the role of gender in court proceedings" when it develops training on bias.

According to the bill's author, Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Silicon Valley, bias is especially prevalent in criminal courts. In a statement released Monday after Newsom signed her bill, Wahab said SB 1356 would "mitigate the over penalization of women involved in criminal cases." The bill will require that Judicial Council training on gender bias include discussion of how women's gender can place them "in unique situations of vulnerability."

"While training regarding domestic violence is covered under existing law, and training on gender bias exists, there are still gender discrepancies in judicial decisions," Wahab told the Assembly Judiciary Committee in June. "Women are still fighting in court for pay equity. Incarcerated women can plainly point to how intimate partner violence played a role in their incarceration."

Wahab quickly found allies among the women attorneys on the committee. Both Assembly Members Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda, and Blanca Pacheco, D-Downey, described how early in their legal careers, judges scolded them over their clothing. Bauer-Kahan repeated her story when she presented Wahab's bill on the Assembly floor this month.

"I was told I could not represent my client because I wasn't wearing a skirt," Bauer-Kahan said of the incident that she said occurred months after she graduated from law school in 2004.

According to an Assembly analysis, the bill builds on a 2019 law, AB 242, that authorized the Judicial Council to offer implicit bias training. It also follows two decades of efforts by three successive governors to diversify California's bench officers in terms of race and gender.

Only 4% of California prison inmates are women, according to figures published last year by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. This is down from 5% in 2018, following years of policies that sought to reduce the inmate population by releasing non-violent and minor criminals.

But citing a study by the University of California Sentencing Project, Wahab told the committee that courts often fail to recognize that women offenders are often also victims.

"A 2023 UCLA report found that lengthy sentences for women function in part as punishment in the criminal justice system rather than much needed rehabilitation," she told the Assembly Judiciary Committee. "The report also found that women in the criminal legal system had often survived multiple forms of racialized, gendered and sexualized violence, directly and indirectly."

Assembly Member Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, told Wahab that he had concerns about the bill but that it attempts to address the real problems courts can have telling victims from perpetrators.

"We've had a lot of talk in this building on human trafficking," Patterson said. "A lot of the concerns around proposed laws has been the women who are actually their victims, but they become a part of the system."

Patterson was one of many Republicans to support the measure. Several of his colleagues abstained in floor and committee votes, but SB 1356 did not receive a single no vote on its way to Newsom's desk. The bill was supported by the California Employment Lawyers Association, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence and the Consumer Attorneys of California, among others.

Both houses are holding lengthy floor sessions this week ahead of the end of the Legislative year on Aug. 31. Newsom will then have until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills.

Among the other bills Newsom signed on Monday were two measures that are part of the state overhauling of the juvenile justice system. SB 1005 will allow a probation officer to refer some crimes to juvenile courts. SB 1484 would modify the authority of some juvenile courts to exclude children under 12.

Newsom signaled that the state's tight budget situation could limit the number of bills he signed. He vetoed SB 674, an air quality monitoring bill. In a veto message, he wrote "there is no state funding identified or available" to pay for the bill.