Expansion of Racial Justice Act stalls over cost concerns

SACRAMENTO--Public defenders and criminal justice reform activists rallied to save legislation that would expand the Racial Justice Act of 2020. But AB 1071 may have been inadvertently sidetracked by the largest public defender's office in the country.

"Racism is a foundational building block of our criminal legal system," Alameda County Public Defender Brendon Woods said while backed by a cheering crowd outside the Capitol on Wednesday morning. "Race has always played a role. Who was stopped? Who is policed? Who was surveilled? Who was prosecuted?"

Woods and Contra Costa County Public Defender Ellen McDonnell went on to detail statistics about how Black and brown defendants are disproportionately charged and convicted in their counties. Woods said a black person in his county was 20 times more likely to be arrested for robbery, and 45 times more likely to be convicted, compared to a white person. McDonnell also made several references to a years-long investigation into racist text messages between members of the Antioch Police Department.

Closing these gaps was the rationale behind AB 2542. The law written by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, stated that the state could not secure a conviction or impose a sentence based on race, ethnicity or national origin.

But the law also allowed defendants to challenge their convictions if they could show statistical disparities in how people were arrested, charged or convicted. This has led to a flood of appeals. Several California appellate judges have privately complained about the workload the act has created. In her State of the Judiciary speech in March, California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero said the act was making it more difficult for courts to manage criminal caseloads.

Cost estimates have also ranged up to the tens of millions. Recent state budgets have contained several million dollars for court-appointed private counsel and other costs. A 2021 Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis claimed a follow-up law Kalra wrote would cost at least $21 million. AB 256 clarified the act was retroactive to cases prior to 2021.

Kalra's new bill would clarify rules to make it easier for defendants to file challenges under the act. This includes specifying that defendants whose judgments are not final may file claims in the trial court. It would also address several procedural hurdles that have made it more difficult to file post-conviction challenges.

AB 1071 passed the full Assembly in May without going before the Appropriations Committee, which flags bills with a potentially prohibitive cost.

But the California District Attorneys' Association seized an opportunity to derail it in the Senate.

In a June opposition letter, lobbyist Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy in Sacramento warned, "AB 1071 would create a massive unfunded mandate" in a court system that "is already overwhelmed." She argued the bill lacked guardrails, for instance by setting standards for post-conviction defendants to receive court-appointed counsel and would lead to a flood of new cases that could bring the criminal justice system "to a halt" unless there was significant new funding.

Stone followed up on June 24 with a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"In December of 2024, the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office filed a test claim with the Commission on State Mandates," Stone wrote. "They alleged that AB 256's newly created avenue of habeas corpus was a reimbursable, state-mandated program, sought reimbursement for costs incurred, and projected future costs."

She continued, "On June 17, 2025, the Commission on State Mandates released a draft of its proposed decision, in which it determined that AB 256 imposed a reimbursable state mandate. ...The draft analysis concludes: 'This activity is new. There is no pre-existing duty to provide counsel for post-conviction habeas corpus petitions. The test claim statute's requirement is mandatory on counties.'"

On July 14, the committee voted 7-0 to move AB 1071 to its suspense file. This hold is placed on potentially expensive legislation to allow further evaluation of costs.

The Los Angeles Public Defender's Office did not respond to an email seeking comment. Kalra's office declined to comment on the cost concerns.