Another upside-down amendment to Rent Ordinance is introduced - Campos Bill Re: Educator Evictions

Politics have an inherited dependency on voters. At the core of politics is "making of a common decision for a group of people." [Wikipedia] Not surprisingly, politicians get voters' support by proposing decisions favorited by majority groups of people. The danger of democracy voting itself out was noticed long time ago. A fresh example from far away: Switzerland is going to vote on guaranteeing each citizen a monthly payment of approximately $2,800 fixed income, directly from the government, no effort required. How do you think this proposed measure will survive at the polls? I too think it will pass with a rare rate of success. [I was wrong--Swiss voted against it on June 5]

Example from a recent local past: in September 2015, our supervisors had to vote on the proposed vast package of anti-lanlord measures. Each of the decision-making voting members, a supervisor, is an elected figure, naturally concerned with influencing the electorate of her/his district, so that the majority group votes in support. If tenants constitute a majority of voters, how do you think the elected candidates would vote, especially when the a supervisor's voting is weeks away from her own re-election? Supervisors unanimously (on most points) supported the measure, and it is left to stay with us, at least until being examined by the courts,* even if the supervisors are gone. It did not help some of the sups who were due for re-election. In this city, one quote, even remotely suggesting something against the "eviction crisis" theme, can cost supervisor a seat. And it did. Read the coverage on ballotpedia.org, you will see that the winner for that district was supported by the Tenants' Union. The losing candidate was obviously not.

And turning to the current events, here is a new example of a successful attempt of winning tenant-voters' hearts: Supervisor David Campos (whose bid for reelection is up this year) introduced an amendment to eviction regulations, to limit evictions of anyone related in employment to education. What can be wrong with that? Let's count ways.

Access to UK Caselaw And Beyond

If you need to look up a case decided in United Kingdom, try this free database. While there, look at the right column, entitled "World Law Resources," it has links to a collection of world jurisdictions.

e-Filing comes to San Francisco, hopefully without Jim Crow laws

Filing court papers online (termed as "e-filing") is a very useful feature. It was implemented already 10 years ago in the Federal courts, through the so called ECF/Pacer system. The efficiency of ECF/Pacer was recently put on the test, during the Federal Government's shutdown, allowing the courts to remain functional. In his address to the bar, Chief Judge Jaroslovsky commented that he would be writing a much different letter, should no eFiling system be in place at the time of the government's closure.

[UPDATE 11-5-14] 3 vendors are finally approved (URL upd. 06/26) for the SF Court, in addition to the previously approved sole provider "File & Serve Xpress." Given the e-filing becomes mandatory (URL upd. 06/26) in this court starting December 8, it's about time to get the providers on board.

[UPDATE 7-24-14] The voluntary e-filing became available on almost all kinds of cases, and I have personally successfully filed my first document through this system today.

[UPDATE 1-27-14] The "mandatory" e-filing is changed to "voluntary (URL upd. 06/26)," while the second provider is getting up and running. New estimate for mandatory e-filing's cut-off date is June 30, 2014.

[UPDATE 1-6-14] San Francisco Court moves forward with one vendor and announces (URL upd. 06/26) an additional vendor selected "through a competitive process." Competitor's name is not yet disclosed. Expansion of the mandatory e-filing kicks in on January 27, 2014.

Involuntary Un-Servitude

There is a recent move in the State of New York to increase the age limit for judges, to allow them to serve beyond the currently imposed 70 years. New York Times' article states that there are more than 30 states, plus D.C., that have an age limit on jurists. I found the article very interesting: it gives a reader a broad set of facts and, at least to me, feels like an exam set, inviting to "discuss this" and spot possible issues. I came up with these: