Congress reauthorized VAWA in 2000 and again in 2005. Now the American Bar Association and other groups are urging Congress once more to reauthorize the act. VAWA has been the single most effective federal effort to respond to the epidemic of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in this country. The act has ensured that legal and social services are available to survivors, and that law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, attorneys and advocates are well-trained and equipped with cutting-edge resources to effectively address these crimes in their own communities.

In January of this year, 53 Attorneys General signed a joint letter to Congress expressing their support for VAWA and urging Congress to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. Hundreds of local programs, faith groups, state coalitions and others have signed similar letters, urging swift reauthorization and supporting the current Senate bill, S. 1925, co-sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Mike Crapo (R-Id.)

Recent studies support arguments for reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. According to a U.S. Justice Department report, for instance, the number of women killed by intimate partners decreased by 35 percent between 1993 (the year before the act’s passage) and 2008, and nonfatal violent acts against women by intimate partners decreased by 53 percent. During the same period, the number of men killed by intimate partners decreased by 46 percent, and the number of nonfatal violent acts against men by intimate partners dropped by 54 percent. Other studies indicate that incidents of domestic and sexual violence tend to go down when victims have legal representation and when they obtain protection orders.

Nevertheless, the United States still has a long way to go. According to a CDC study released in December, nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives. One in 6 women and 1 in 19 men have experienced stalking victimization at some point during their lifetime in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed. And about 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.

VAWA is a critical tool in the arsenal to address domestic and sexual violence. One study found that in 86% of cases where a victim received a protection order, the abuse stopped or was greatly reduced. Another found that half of victims who obtained a protection order experienced no violations of the order in the following 6 months. For those victims who did experience violations, every type of violence and abuse was reduced significantly during the 6 month follow-up period. A 2010 study demonstrated that an increase in the availability of legal services is associated with a decrease in intimate partner homicide.

VAWA has become an integral part of our public safety strategy that has empirical support for its effectiveness. The good work being done by thousands of local providers and public servants cannot continue without its reauthorization.

Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III

This op-ed by former U.S. Attornrey General Edwin Meese and ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III appeared on Fox News January 16, 2012.

The Founding Fathers separated our government into three co-equal branches by design, with each, at times, checking the other branches and holding them to their limited purpose.

Alexander Hamilton especially understood the challenge inherent in preserving an independent but accountable role for the judiciary. As he explained in The Federalist No. 78, the courts are in “continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its co-ordinate branches.”

Today, our state courts face budget cuts that threaten the kind of independence described by Hamilton, and intended as well by the drafters of state constitutions. These budget shortfalls limit the ability of the courts to function, and to remain an effective forum to punish criminals and for the American people to resolve disputes.

According to the National Center for State Courts, 42 states cut funding for their judiciaries in 2011. Its most recent survey found that 34 states have laid off staff and 23 have reduced hours.

Earlier this year, Alabama authorized its courts to close its clerks’ offices up to 10 hours a week.

In New York, court administrators shaved 30 minutes off the workday to save money.

In Georgia, the budget is so lean that courts solicit pen and pencil donations from vendors like LexisNexis and Westlaw.

Sadly not a single state in America spends more than 4 percent of its annual budget on its judiciary, and too many states fund their courts at less than 1 percent. Across the United States, state judiciaries must try to operate on less than some individual departments in the executive branch.

And yet, the needs of our modern justice system continue to grow. According to a Court Statistics Project report, the vast majority – approximately 95 percent – of all legal cases are filed in state courts.

In 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, states reported 106 million incoming trial court cases. That figure surpasses every record from the preceding 35 years. Remarkably, the number of incoming cases per general jurisdiction judge often reached into the thousands. In 2008 alone, a typical South Carolina judge handled a caseload of 4,842 incoming non-traffic cases.

Our legal system must be accessible to be just and fair. We can and should address the problem of needless or abusive litigation, but making the courts less efficient and available for all cases is not the answer.

Many state constitutions provide a specific right to remedy in the courts. Those mandates are in tension with many of the court funding cuts we now see in jurisdictions across the country. In Alabama, “[a]dequate and reasonable financing for the entire unified judicial system shall be provided.” In Maryland, “[t]hat every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the Land.”

Budget-cutters have not likely considered these constitutional declarations when they cut court budgets. To be sure, every part of government must do “their fair share” in times of fiscal crisis. But the courts simply must be open, available and adequately staffed.

No one would accept closing one day a week other entities that enforce the law. Our justice system is no different. Our courts protect lives. It is time to stand up and speak out for our courts, so that they can protect us.

The people should not have to jump over substantial budgetary hurdles or endure excessive delays to reach the courtroom. Whether it is the state seeking to bring a criminal to justice swiftly and effectively, or, private citizens seeking the judgment of a court in a child custody case, a business dispute, or for the protection of fundamental rights under the law, courts need to be able to mete out justice efficiently and with the resources that ensure accuracy.

Surprising bedfellows can make the strongest advocates for change. Regardless of other issues that divide today’s political spectrum, all policy leaders should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to the need for adequate and sustainable funding for our courts. Our liberty depends on it.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/16/our-liberty-depends-on-funding-our-courts-so-can-protect-all-us/#ixzz1jpmOSwxH

This op-ed by U.S. Chamber President Lisa Rickard and ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III appeared in USA Today January 4, 2012.

In 2009, the chief justice of New Hampshire’s Supreme Court felt compelled to take an extreme step to keep the state’s wider court system running. The poor funding situation for New Hampshire’s judiciary had grown so dire that then-Chief Justice John Broderick Jr. reluctantly suspended civil jury trials for 12 months. In the short term, undermining a cornerstone of the American legal process provided necessary savings, but it also threatened timely and reliable access to justice for individuals and businesses.

This scene may soon be mirrored across the country as budgets for courts — a coequal branch of government — wither to distressing lows. Last year, 42 states cut much-needed funding for their judiciaries.

The staggering toll of inadequately funded courts threatens the ability of people to file for divorce, seek custody of a child or save a home from foreclosure. It is also an emergent burden on our economy as the judiciary has experienced growing caseloads amid those declining budgets.

The crisis of court underfunding ultimately touches every person, every business and every community in our country. Two years ago, a municipal court in Ohio announced that no new cases could be filed unless the litigants brought their own paper for court filings. The court has since received additional funding to pay for paper, but closes on Fridays to save money.

In North Carolina, litigants could not exchange documents in a court there because copying services had been eliminated. The local bar association held a supply drive to remedy this situation. Right now, more than $350 million in cuts to California’s judicial budget for 2011 could bring years of delays for civil trials.

Inadequate funding across our nation this year has resulted in 23 states reducing hours of operation and 34 states laying off court staff. The resulting shuffle of court dates, postponed hearings, and last-minute scheduling means that answering the question of whether a contract is enforceable or a debt collectible is increasingly unclear.

Commerce thrives on certainty. So when states financially starve their judiciaries, they inadvertently create environments toxic to economic growth. Enterprise requires that open and available courts be accessible to resolve disputes from construction contracts to supply matters.

Timely access to courts is especially important to small business — the backbone of our economy. According to a survey of small-business owners, 71% said that they would delay hiring new employees if they were sued. And small businesses that are embroiled in litigation often cannot get vital loans from banks until the suit is concluded.

All of this translates into costly delays, which sap resources from companies and organizations that could be used to hire employees, fund research, expand a company or pay dividends to shareholders.

Ultimately, these delays undermine confidence in the historically reliable and efficient system of justice that has built our country into the world’s best opportunity for economic growth and international investment.

Our courts are a necessary element in the inner workings of commerce. Just as we all have an interest in rebuilding our economy, we all have a stake in the health of our justice system. All Americans should insist on adequate funding of our courts, giving the judiciary the tools necessary to help our economy grow.

This op-ed by ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III appeared in The Des Moines Register December 21, 2011

Abolish courts. Ignore rulings. Impeach judges. These are just a few of the ideas Newt Gingrich has suggested to win over the Republican voters in Iowa.

But his headline-grabbing proposals represent more than just campaign rhetoric. They seek to undo more than 200 years of constitutional democracy and undermine the one safe haven Americans have to resolve a dispute: our courts.

You won’t hear judges respond when Gingrich says our courts are “grotesquely dictatorial,” or when the candidate says he would consider dispatching U.S. marshals to round up judges to testify before Congress.

The judiciary isn’t a powerful interest group. Courts cannot raise money or marshal voters, unlike Gingrich. Our courts are easy targets because judges do not respond to these attacks. They are, by design, not supposed to react to the whims and passions of politicians.

Our nation’s founders specifically separated our government into three co-equal branches to prevent the excessive accumulation of power by the legislative, executive or judicial branches. In real terms, judicial independence means that courts protect and enforce our rights as Americans. Without them, authorities could kick down your door whenever they choose, record your conversations on phones and computers, or prevent you from protesting peacefully.

When a judge makes a decision, it should be made without fear of intimidation or retaliation. In return, the public must have confidence that the judiciary will be impartial and not swayed by outside influence.

With our growing population and fragile economy, elected officials and those seeking office should focus attention on the fundamental problems facing our courts. The state judicial system is on the verge of becoming nonfunctional and irrelevant because of increasing workloads and inadequate funding. The federal judiciary suffers from a chronic undersupply of judges and a ballooning number of statutes that have led to a growing docket of cases.

No one claims that judges are infallible. That is why we have appellate courts within the judiciary and a system of checks and balances among the branches. We can and should pursue a thoughtful conversation about how to improve and strengthen our judicial system without denigrating individual judges, courts or their decisions.

No one likes a bully — be it an office holder, a candidate for public office or a branch of government. The drafters of our Constitution knew that better than anyone.

That generation was defined by the monuments it built. Will ours be defined by the ones we destroy? Let’s stand up for one of our most precious monuments — our judiciary — as a place of integrity and independence. Our liberty depends on it.

Congress must weigh the need to shrink our nation’s burgeoning budget deficit against the fundamental need of low-income citizens to access our justice system.  While the LSC stands to lose $56 million in the budget agreement, the American Bar Association will work diligently with Congress to seek restoration of the lost and desperately needed funding in a future budget year.

- 30 -

Please click here for a biography and photo of Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III, president of the American Bar Association.

The letter is available here.

- 30 -

These failing grades for state systems reflect the sad state of Americans’ knowledge of their own country’s government.  A 2005 ABA-commissioned Harris Poll found many Americans struggling to name the three branches of government — in fact, more than a fifth thought the three branches were “Democrat,” “Republican” and “Independent.” Overall, a mere 20 percent of those polled by Harris showed a strong grasp of basic American government and civics.  A recent Newsweek cover story polled Americans using basic questions found on the U.S. Citizenship test, and many failed. The magazine’s own analysis was that “the country’s future is imperiled by our ignorance.”

Basic American values are in danger when we lose an understanding of our history. A government cannot survive if it is not understood and embraced by its people.

This lack of knowledge is unacceptable, especially because it’s a solvable problem. Currently, fewer than half of all states test students on their knowledge of civics or government. Civics needs to be counted as another basic, like reading and mathematics. If your state doesn’t yet require civics, push your legislature to change that. The C — for civics — is just as crucial to our future as a nation as are the three Rs.

At the national level, the Department of Education can help schools re-embrace civics classes by fostering a competitive grant funding program for civic education in elementary, middle and high schools that require civics classes.

Let’s also talk about our own responsibilities. We have a special role to play in protecting American constitutional democracy. Reread the Constitution and Bill of Rights, with an eye to founding principles like: religious freedom, presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and separation of powers.  Pick up a book or watch a documentary film on John Adams, whose legacy is highlighted in this year’s Law Day theme. Adams’ decision to defend British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre is a vivid reminder of what courage looks like and what makes America special. Contribute an hour or two to lead a school civics class or discussion. Check out the ABA Law Day website for more ideas.

We are all busy, but preserving the rule of law in our own country is fundamental to who we are and what we believe. Make a little time to celebrate Law Day and protect everything for which our nation stands.

The American Bar Association has nearly 400,000 members, many of whom volunteer with any of the ABA’s 2,200 entities.  One of those 2,200 entities is the Section on International Law, which has elected to assemble a taskforce of several individuals to examine this issue.

These individuals are examining whether the proposed changes to the law impact important constitutional questions.  They are also considering implications for international commerce.

The actions of a few interested members within one section are not and cannot be interpreted to be those of the entire American Bar Association. Claims to the contrary are erroneous.

The ABA calls upon the Iranian government to fulfill its human rights obligations under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a state party.  Iran also should observe both the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers to ensure that Iranian lawyers can work “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.”  Further, Iran should, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, “take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of [human rights defenders] against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary actions” as a consequence of their legitimate effort to promote human rights.

# # #