Copyright 2000 The Baltimore Sun Company
THE
BALTIMORE SUN
September 22, 2000, Friday ,FINAL
SECTION: EDITORIAL ,17A
LENGTH: 817 words
HEADLINE: A
poor showing for U.S. legal aid
BYLINE: Robert J. Rhudy
BODY:
For nearly two decades Congress has
deadlocked over our national program to provide legal assistance to low-income
persons in civil matters. The Republican platform adopted last month in
Philadelphia dropped its demand for elimination of the U.S. Legal
Services Corp. The change may offer an opportunity to move forward once
again to provide access to justice for all Americans.
American
government is founded on the premise that all persons are equal before the law.
The second purpose stated in the U.S. Constitution is to "establish justice."
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws." But reality
falls far short of our ideals. Our system of justice relies heavily upon lawyers
to understand legal rights and responsibilities and go to court when conflicts
cannot be resolved. In many instances, persons without a lawyer are denied
access to justice or suffer in conflicts against parties with lawyers. The
Constitution requires states to provide a lawyer to indigent persons charged
with a crime. This is not the case in most civil claims between individuals,
businesses and government.
In 1965, the U.S. Office of Economic
Opportunity initiated a legal services program as a part of the "War on
Poverty." OEO-funded attorneys around the country sought to enforce laws on
behalf of the poor, including winning 73 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court
between 1967 and 1972 for farm workers, tenants, welfare recipients and other
groups. The OEO program quickly came under attack by some business and
agricultural interests and government representatives.
The Legal
Services Corporation Act of 1974 was the result of bipartisan efforts
to resolve the OEO conflict while insulating legal services from political
pressures. The LSC Act stressed "equal access to the system of justice in our
nation for individuals who seek redress of grievances."
By 1981, LSC
briefly achieved a plan for minimum access to fund one attorney for each 5,000
income-eligible persons throughout the United States. Upon taking office that
same year, President Ronald Reagan tried to eliminate LSC. The Reagan
administration could not override congressional support for legal aid, but did
force deep budget cuts and restrictions.
Hostilities abated somewhat
under President George Bush beginning in 1988, although LSC's funding remained
stagnant. Funding increased briefly following Bill Clinton's election, but
plummeted in 1995 when House Republicans under Newt Gingrich again sought to end
the program. The 1996 Republican platform called for the "elimination, defunding
or privatization" of LSC.
Conservative Republicans had won the legal
services fight by prohibiting lobbying, class actions, challenges to welfare
reform or representation of prisoners and eliminating funding for specialized
poverty law centers.
Legal aid offices today also cannot begin to
provide minimal access to justice for poor Americans with current resources. LSC
today has a client base of nearly 45 million people.
With a 1981 budget
of $321.5 million, LSC-funded offices employed 6,218 attorneys
and 9,075 support staff. In 1999, LSC received $305 million for
3,590 attorneys and 4,637 other staff. Our current legal aid system serves 20
percent of the need of our poorest citizens (mostly women with children).
Compared with other countries, our legal aid program is a national
disgrace. An LSC report to Congress in April said, "Government in the U.S., with
federal and state resources combined, spends about $1.70 per
capita on civil legal aid. By comparison in 1994-1995, England and Wales spent
$30 per capita." Public funding in most of Canada and Western
Europe runs five to 10 times the U.S. level per capita.
One positive
response to the federal legal aid battle since 1981 has been a growing state
role. Every state has designated an agency to help fund and develop legal
services. While these activities have not offset federal cuts, states have
accepted responsibility for legal aid. They need federal support.
In
July, Mr. Clinton again brought Arab and Jewish leaders to the table to seek
peace in the Middle East. Can U.S. leaders come together to provide access to
justice in our country?
The Republican-led restrictions over the years
have gone too far for many legal aid supporters. But should those restrictions
be accepted anyway so that Congress will pay for the current program? Or should
Congress recognize the rights of states to use federal and state dollars to
provide the kinds of legal aid they believe appropriate?
Regardless of
the outcome of this fall's elections, the GOP's Philadelphia platform provides
an opportunity to begin the dialogue for an honorable peace. Who will bring our
leaders to the table in the cause of justice for our nation's poor?
Robert J. Rhudy is executive director of the Maryland Legal
Services Corp.
GRAPHIC: Photo(s)
LOAD-DATE: September 25, 2000
