State Slashes Inmate Numbers As Court Decision Looms

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide within weeks whether federal judges can order California to reduce the inmate population in its overstuffed prisons, but the state already has taken steps that will limit the consequences if the court rules against it.

Moreover, a new state law would remove even more inmates than the federal courts contemplated. However it rules, the high court still will set a nationwide precedent as it determines the authority of federal judges to intervene in states' operations of their prison systems.

California operates the nation's largest state prison system and currently houses 142,600 inmates in its 33 adult prisons. That's down from a high of 162,268 in 2006, or a decline of 12.1 percent over five years. The state has another 20,000 inmates housed in private prisons in other states, and in firefighting camps and community correctional facilities within California.

The state would have to reduce its inmate population by an additional 33,000 -- or 23 percent -- if the justices uphold a panel of federal judges that found crowding had led to unconstitutionally poor medical and mental health care within the system. The judicial panel, based in San Francisco, ruled in August 2009 that the state's prisons can hold no more than about 110,000 inmates.

California would meet, and perhaps even exceed, that target if a bill signed earlier this year takes effect. That law would reduce the prison population by about 40,000 inmates by transferring many low-level offenders to county jurisdiction.

"If we get an adverse decision, we'll be well on our way to reducing our crowding levels to the levels mandated by the courts," state Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate said in an interview.

The catch in the new California law is that it cannot take effect unless it is funded.

Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, says the money to reimburse counties for taking the 40,000 offenders is contained in his budget plan, which calls for a mix of spending cuts and a renewal of recent tax increases to close what had been a $26.6 billion deficit.

Democratic lawmakers already have taken steps to eliminate much of the deficit, primarily through spending cuts, but a $15.4 billion shortfall remains.

Brown is using the pending Supreme Court decision to pressure Republican lawmakers to support putting the tax extensions before voters in a special election. He wants voters to decide whether to extend for five years increases enacted two years ago in the sales, personal income and vehicle taxes, which would bring in about $9.2 billion a year. All the taxes will expire by June 30.

"We stand under the Sword of Damocles of the United States Supreme Court, which by the middle of June will be rendering a decision which in all probability will demand the release of tens of thousands of people currently housed in our prisons," Brown said during a Capitol news conference last week. "The only question is, 'Are we going to handle it properly, with a plan? Or are we just going to react without the money, without the realignment, and in a way that will be ultimately self-defeating?"'

As attorney general, Brown fought the federal intervention.

Republican state Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, a former chairman of the state parole board and the GOP's spokesman on the prisoner debate, said California would be better off rejecting Brown's plan and awaiting the Supreme Court's mandate because it would mean the release of fewer inmates -- 33,000 as opposed to 40,000.

At issue in the case before the Supreme Court is a 1996 federal law that governs the authority of federal judges in inmates-rights cases. Eighteen other states joined California in arguing that the lower court went too far in ordering the prisoner release.

The federal courts have been involved in California's prison system since 1990 over the quality of medical and mental health care delivered to its inmates. At one point, a federal judge said an average of one inmate a week was dying because of neglect or malfeasance.

A federal receiver now oversees prison medical operations, but the federal courts have said the key solution for improving health care is to reduce the number of inmates.

At the peak of the overcrowding, nearly 20,000 inmates were living in makeshift housing in gymnasiums and other common areas, often sleeping in bunks stacked three high. Another 10,000 inmates were in firefighting camps or private lockups within California.

In 2006, Schwarzenegger used his emergency powers to begin shipping inmates to private prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma. More than 10,000 California inmates are now housed in private prisons out of state.

The former governor also sought to reduce the inmate population by signing legislation that increased early release credits and made it more difficult to send ex-convicts back to prison for parole violations. Another law rewards county probation departments for keeping criminals out of state prisons. Since the two laws took effect last year, the overall prison population has dropped by nearly 5,500 inmates.

As one result, the state has been able to do away with nearly two-thirds of its makeshift beds, although more than 7,000 inmates remain in temporary housing.

The state also approved $7 billion in bonds for prison and jail construction projects that have begun after four years of delay.

Two juvenile lockups are being converted into prisons for more than 2,100 adults. A medical center in Stockton and mental health units statewide will house nearly 1,900 inmates. The state has approved building a Stockton facility for 500 inmates nearing release, and plans to soon approve similar facilities for another 1,000 inmates.

The construction is designed to relieve pressure on crowded prisons while also improving mental health and medical care.

Even if the Supreme Court overturns the order requiring California to ease prison crowding, the state will be left with other court mandates to improve the care of physically and mentally ill inmates. Even state corrections officials agree that one of the best ways to do that is to reduce the number of inmates in the system.

That leaves the governor's administration torn between its desire to reduce prison spending and the need to improve inmate medical care, said Michael Bien, one of the attorneys who brought the prison crowding lawsuit on behalf of inmates.

The administration projects the state will save $2 billion a year by transferring lower-level offenders to county jurisdiction, but only if the state eventually closes some prisons -- which could lead to crowding in the ones that remain open.

"If you close prisons and you keep the same crowding levels, then you've got the same overcrowding concerns that got you in front of the Supreme Court in the first place," said Cate, the state's corrections secretary.

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)