Newly-appointed public defense head mounts effort to stem Oregon's public defense pileup
When Gov. Tina Kotek fired the head of Oregon's embattled public defense commission in April, she gave its new director until June 1 to come up with a strategy to end the state's ongoing public defender shortage.
On Monday, Interim Executive Director Ken Sanchagrin announced just that: A 12-month-long, seven-point plan by the agency that seeks to expand contracts with lawyers and nonprofits across the state, increase voluntary caseloads for available attorneys and onboard law students who can be supervised while providing a defense for those accused of crimes.
The response marks the commission's first attempt at addressing the shortage since Kotek overhauled its leadership two months ago. It doesn't provide a timeline for exactly when the crisis should end, as Kotek requested in April, but Sanchagrin told reporters Monday that he estimates that counties most affected by the issue could see relief as early as mid-fall.
'We can make significant progress over the next 12 months, but I think that coming up with a date, as somebody who really lives in the data, that's not something that is really possible at this point,' he said during a Monday media briefing. 'Given the increases in filings, and then given also some of these new proposals that we've put out that may or may not also be impacted by some legislative decisions that are being made, that makes it extremely difficult.'
A Kotek press secretary said Monday that the governor could respond to the news on Tuesday. The announcement drew immediate praise from critics of the public defense agency's prior approaches to solving the crisis.
'We need to honor the hard work of public defenders and provide the appropriate level of representation and service for indigent defense. This plan does that with enhanced capacity and recruitment,' said Sen. Anthony Broadman, D-Bend, in a statement Monday. 'We will continue to leverage the Legislature's accountability and oversight functions to ensure the agency has the tools to execute this plan and resolve the crisis.'
The public defense commission is an independent body with power delegated by the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, designed with the goal of ensuring representation and defense counsel for all Oregonians. In April, it made headlines after Kotek fired its head leader and slammed the then-estimated number of Oregonians without representation for being at 4,000, which she had called 'unacceptable.'
Oregon employs an array of centralized and deployable trial lawyers, public defenders, and nonprofit attorneys to help ensure that those who cannot afford an attorney are given proper defense, an obligation mandated by the U.S. and Oregon constitutions. The issue has long concerned officials, with a scathing 2019 study slamming Oregon's 'complex bureaucracy that collects a significant amount of indigent defense data, yet does not provide sufficient oversight or financial accountability.'
As of June 2, 3,779 people lack public defenders, according to the state's dashboard, though Sanchagrin's letter said that the number was upwards of 4,400 as of May 2025. The majority of cases involve the six 'crisis' counties: Coos, Douglas, Jackson, Marion, Multnomah and Washington. Approaches in each of those localities will vary, but according to the plan, about 40% of an identified 176 attorneys with extra case capacity are based in these areas.
'What we're hoping to do is to proactively work with those individuals to identify who is willing and who has the ability to take additional cases above and beyond current…limits amongst those individuals,' Sanchagrin said. 'Then we can build that expectation into our contracts on the front end, which means it will be able to better predict and forecast what our case needs are going to be in a given area.'
In a statement, the Oregon Judicial Department said it was 'encouraged by the urgency' demonstrated by Sanchagrin's plan.
'While we have not yet had the opportunity to fully review this detailed document, we support this step toward data-driven solutions and stand ready to assist the OPDC as needed to move forward,' wrote Chief Justice Meagan Flynn in a statement.
Some of the plan's ability to be implemented will hinge on current legislative and budget discussions currently underway at the state level, Sanchagrin said. Currently the Legislature is still negotiating the commission's final budget and considering House Bill 2614, which would declare the public defense crisis an emergency and extend contract availability until July 2033.
Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, helped lead the push in 2023 for legislation that allocated around $90 million to overhaul the public defense system. He told the Capital Chronicle on Monday that the plan represents the 'best opportunity we have for progress in sometime.' Citing ongoing negotiations, he declined to comment on the budget or the legislation but said 'we are giving them more than the baseline they need to be able to serve to succeed.'
'We've purposefully taken the long view that this whole session of recognizing that public defense must be integrated into all aspects and you need the entire system healthy,' he said. 'You can't just put money into one compartment and say, OK, somehow it's going to work out.'
The amount of in-custody unrepresented individuals has sharply decreased since January — around 30%, according to the commission. Much of that reduction, it says, is because of the work of its trial division, which has taken over 2,200 cases and deploys across the state to assist in cases requiring multijurisdictional authority or high levels of expertise to put on a defense.
Under the new plan, the trial division will seek out new counties and jurisdictions in which it can intervene in the crisis, said Aaron Jeffers, the division's chief deputy defender.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump just floated a tax idea that would hugely benefit California homeowners
President Donald Trump just floated an idea that could benefit more homeowners in California than in any other state: eliminating the capital gains tax on the sale of a primary home. Under current law, homeowners who sell their primary home pay nothing on their first $250,000 (single filers) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) in profits. Anything over that is taxed as a capital gain. Those limits have not changed since the law that created them took effect in May 1997. Had they increased along with the Consumer Price Index, they would be double that now. California has, by far, more homes exceeding the current limits than any other state. Between 2017 and 2023, California accounted for 37% of all sales nationwide that had gross capital gains exceeding $500,000, even though it made up only 10% of all home sales, according to a study last year by Cotality. Rather than sell and pay capital gains tax – which could be as much as 33% in federal and California taxes combined – many long-term homeowners plan to stay put until they die, even if their home no longer suits them. Upon their death, all of the appreciation that occurred during their lifetime will be tax-free, thanks to a tax benefit known as the 'step-up in basis." Real estate agents say this 'lock-in' effect is slowing home sales and driving up prices in high-cost markets. 'We have had the most appreciation in the nation coupled with the highest capital gains rate in the nation when you count state and federal,' said Silicon Valley Realtor Ken DeLeon. 'I have a client, he has Alzheimer's, he should really be in a care home, but he has a highly appreciated home and he's choosing not to sell.' He noted that In Santa Clara County, single-family home sales fell fairly steadily from 24,174 in 2001 to 10,102 in 2024. In San Mateo County, they fell from 8,878 to 4,471, DeLeon said. About two weeks ago, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced a bill, the No Tax on Home Sales Act, that would eliminate capital gains taxes on primary home sales. During a press conference Tuesday, Trump was asked, 'How important is it we have no tax on home sales, capital gains to unleash the housing market in this country?' His response: 'Well, we're thinking about that. But it would also unleash it just by lowering the interest rates.' Congress would have to approve any change or elimination of the capital gains tax on homes. If it did, the California Legislature would have to decide whether or not to conform to the new federal law for state taxes. Most federal legislators from California contacted for this article – including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff and Rep. Nancy Pelosi – did not respond or declined to comment on Trump's idea until he puts forth a proposal. But a couple did acknowledge the need for change. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, said via email that there are areas of the state and nation where rising property values 'are making the capital gains tax a barrier for many empty nesters and retirees seeking to sell their homes or downsize. This has worsened California's housing crisis, leaving too many houses off the market … As Ranking Member of the (House) Tax Subcommittee, I support solutions that would address these issues, including raising the current exemption for the capital gains tax." Considering how many tax breaks Congress just granted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it's not clear how much support there is for legislation that would mainly benefit wealthy homeowners. Double the exemption? A more modest bill, the ' More Homes on the Market Act,' would double the existing exemptions to $500,000 for singles and $1 million for couples and index them to inflation. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Santa Cruz, reintroduced the bill in February after it died in 2023, despite having broad bipartisan support. In an emailed statement, Panetta said, 'It's a good thing that the President is finally acknowledging the seriousness of the affordable housing issue…' and that he is 'willing to work with anyone on solutions for my constituents…especially when it comes to our bipartisan bill.' Asked whether he favors eliminating the capital gains tax on homes, his office said Panetta would first have to review any such legislation and the analysis. Doubling the exemption would wipe out the tax for most homeowners, but 'in the Bay Area and California, you would need to quadruple it, to $2 million,' DeLeon said. Since May 1997, the median price of a single-family home nationwide has risen by almost 250% to $441,500, according to National Association of Realtors data. But in California, it shot up 386% to almost $900,000, and in San Francisco County, it soared about 500% to $1.75 million, based on California Association of Realtors data. The old rules Freeing up inventory was also one of the main reasons behind the tax law change in 1997. Under the old law, when sellers made a profit on their primary residence, the tax was deferred (not forgiven) if they purchased a replacement home within a specified time and the new house cost at least as much as the sales price on the old home. A homeowner could continue rolling the untaxed profit from one house to another, as long as they kept buying more expensive homes. If and when they sold a home, all of the accumulated untaxed gains would become taxable. If they left it to their heirs, the gains up until the owner's death generally would escape capital gains tax because of the step-up in basis. The old law also let people 55 or older sell their primary home and exclude up to $125,000 (married or single) in accumulated profits, but only once in a lifetime. As a result, homeowners had to keep meticulous recordkeeping from every house they owned. Some lawmakers and academics believed the law created distortions in the market, such as discouraging homeowners from downsizing, moving into rental housing or from higher-cost to lower-cost markets as their circumstances changed. The new rules The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was intended to reduce these distortions, stimulate sales, simplify recordkeeping and eliminate capital gains taxes for almost all homeowners. It exempted the first $250,000/$500,000 in profits from capital gains tax, whether or not the seller bought a new house. Profit is what's left after you subtract what you paid for the house and eligible improvements from your sales price minus commissions and other selling expenses. Taxpayers with gains under the limits generally do not have to report the sale on their tax return. Any profit over the exemption is taxed as a capital gain. The federal rate on long-term capital gains is 0%, 15% or 20% depending on income. That's lower than the rate on 'ordinary income,' such as from a job or self-employment. A large taxable gain from the sale of a home could also trigger an additional 3.8% 'net investment income tax.' A bulge in income can also force some seniors to pay substantially more for Medicare for one year. California also excludes the first $250,000/$500,000 from the sale of a primary home, but it taxes capital gains just like ordinary income, at rates up to 13.3%. Homeowners can use this exemption as often as every two years, as long as each home has been their primary residence for at least two out of five years before the sale. What happened after 1997? Initially, the new law did eliminate tax for the vast majority of homeowners, but as home prices soared, so did the number who owed tax. Between 2000 and 2003 – a few years after the rule change – only about 38,000 home sales per year nationwide, or 1.3% of all existing home sales, had gross capital gains (excluding homeowner improvements) that exceeded $500,000, according to Cotality. By the end of 2023, almost 230,000 homes or 7.9% of all home sales nationwide – and almost 29% in California – were over the limit. A study commissioned by the National Association of Realtors found that 34% of homeowners today could already exceed $250,000 in capital gains and 10% have potential gains above $500,000. Those numbers could be 56% and 23%, respectively, by 2030 and nearly 70% and 38% by 2035. 'These outdated (exemption) thresholds are already distorting the housing market and locking up inventory, and it is getting worse every year,' the association wrote. What research says Several academic studies found that the tax law change in 1997 did increase housing turnover, and may have contributed to the sharp runup in home prices from the early 2000s until 2008, when the bubble burst. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 'played a significant role in facilitating the boom in the residential real estate market that began shortly after its enactment,' Pete H. Oppenheimer, then a professor at the University of North Georgia, wrote in a 2014 paper. It created an opportunity for homeowners to receive tax free income when they resold their principal residences, which made homeownership more attractive and caused the real estate market to 'expand in volume and price,' he added. It also helped 'real estate investors and professionals to achieve tax free income … by converting rental property into a personal residence.' A Federal Reserve study published in 2008 concluded that the 1997 Act 'reversed the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes on houses with low and moderate capital gains.' However, it 'may have generated an unintended lock-in effect on houses with capital gains over the maximum exclusion amount.' Its author Hui Shan found that the short-term effect was 'much larger' than the long-term effect. A 2011 paper by Andrea Heuson and Gary Painter also found that housing turnover 'increased significantly' after 1997. 'The surprising result is how broad based the change in trading behavior is, appearing across all age ranges and impacting both trading up and trading down,' they wrote. Based on his past research, Painter predicted that eliminating the tax on home sales would increase sales. When he left his job at the University of Southern California to teach at the University of Cincinnati, Painter kept his home near Long Beach and rented it out because he didn't want to pay capital gains tax, but also in case he wanted to return to California one day. It's not just capital gains tax Capital gains are not the only culprit locking up inventory. Many homeowners with mortgages around 3% are reluctant to move, now that rates are hovering around 6% to 7%. That is the 'big 1,000-pound gorilla that has reduced mobility," Painter said. And in California, many sellers would face a big increase in their property tax assessment if they sold a long-held home and bought another. Proposition 19, passed by voters in 2020, was supposed to boost inventory by making it easier for people 55 or older to transfer their assessment from their current home to a new one, thus avoiding or reducing a property-tax increase. It also made it harder for children to keep a parent's low property tax base on an inherited home. It appears that more Bay Area seniors did move after Prop. 19 took effect, at least in the first few years. But results varied by county and the effects wore off over time. In Contra Costa, requests by seniors for Prop. 19 transfers went from around 200 per year before 2020 to about 1,000 a year after two years, but since then has tapered off to around 600 a year, said Gus Kramer, the county's assessor. In Santa Clara County, Prop. 19 'has been a lot less successful than anticipated. The biggest negative by far is capital gains,' DeLeon said. Unintended consequences If Congress eliminated capital gains tax on homes, Painter believes more people would move out of California. For people contemplating a move, losing their low property-tax base 'is not an issue, but (capital gains) taxes are. This would be an opportunity to cash in on their equity,' he said. And instead of making homes more affordable, it could increase prices. 'More generous tax treatment of homes could bid up home prices on the demand side, exacerbating concerns about housing affordability,' Joseph Rosenberg , a senior fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said via email. San Francisco Chief Economist Ted Egan concurs. 'The expectation of reduced taxes upon sale would likely result in modest upward pressure on housing prices in places, like San Francisco, where profits on home sales often exceed the threshold,' he said via email. 'This in turn would lead to a modest increase in property taxes.'
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
California Democrats may target GOP congressional districts to counter Texas
California Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom may upend the state's mandate for independently drawn political districts as part of a brewing, national political brawl over the balance of power in Congress and the fate of the aggressive, right-wing agenda of President Trump and the GOP. The effort being considered by state Democratic leaders is specifically intended to reduce the number of Republicans in California's congressional delegation, retaliation for the ongoing actions by GOP leaders in Texas to unseat Democratic representatives in its state, reportedly at Trump's behest. 'I think this whole thing is a horrible idea all the way around … and I don't think people fully understand the ramifications of what they're talking about,' said Republican redistricting expert Matt Rexroad. 'Once we get to the point where we're just doing random redistricting after every election … redistricting won't be used as a tool to reflect voter interests. It will be used to just bludgeon minority political interests, whether it be Republican or Democrat, after every election.' Newsom already has been in talks with Democratic legislative leaders and others about reconfiguring California's congressional district boundaries before the 2026 election. Doing so probably would require a statewide ballot measure to scrap or temporarily pause the voter-approved, independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission charged with drawing the boundaries of congressional districts based on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. In 2010, Californians voted to create the commission to take partisan politics out of the redistricting process for Congress, two years after they did so for the state Legislature. Newsom said California may have to take the emergency action if Texas and other GOP-controlled states this year decide to redraw their congressional districts to ensure that Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election. Redrawing of congressional districts typically occurs after the decennial census to reflect population shifts across the nation. 'So they want to change the game,' he said last week. 'We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.' Redistricting experts in both parties agree that reverting to partisan redrawing of congressional lines in California would make several GOP incumbents vulnerable. The state's congressional districts could be reconfigured to increase the share of Democratic voters in districts currently represented by Republicans, or in a way that forces Republican officeholders to face off against one another. Rexroad sees a scenario in which Republicans are so packed into districts that the party would have only three safe seats. Only nine of the state's 52 congressional districts are currently represented by the GOP. Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell said five of nine GOP-held districts could be flipped. He said Democrats are in a good position to gain seats because of California's history of nonpartisan redistricting. In Texas, by comparison, districts already are gerrymandered to favor Republicans. In California, 'Democrats haven't had partisan line-drawing since the '90s,' he said. 'So there's all this partisan gain left on the table for decades. If you ever do crack open the map, there's just many available to bolster' the party's existing grip on the delegation. Rexroad warns that there would be unintended consequences, including weakening safe Republican districts in Texas and leading to a broken system in which lines are redrawn after every election to benefit whichever party controls the White House or various legislative bodies. Before the creation of the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, California was similar to most other states. Political districts were created by state lawmakers of both parties who often prioritized incumbent protection and gerrymandered oddly shaped districts, such as the infamous 'ribbon of shame,' where a 200-mile coastal sliver of a congressional district between Oxnard and the Monterey County line disappeared during high tide. Former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said such districts are why he started the National Democratic Redistricting Committee with former President Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) in 2017. 'Because of our work, we now have the fairest national congressional map the country has seen in a generation, one that allows both parties to compete for the majority in the House,' Holder said Wednesday at a 'Stop the Texas Takeover' virtual event hosted by the redistricting committee. That could fall by the wayside, however, if some states crack open their redistricting process for partisan gain and states controlled by the opposing party retaliate by doing to the same. California Democrats are considering trying to revisit the independent line-drawing after President Trump and his administration urged Texans to redraw their districts in a way that probably would improve the GOP's ability to hold control of Congress in next year's midterm election. The House is narrowly divided, and the party that wins the White House often loses seats in the body two years later. The loss of a handful of GOP seats would stymie Trump's plans, potentially making him a lame duck for two years. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for a special session of the state Legislature that includes redistricting and began Monday. On Tuesday, Abbott said the decision was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw 'coalition districts,' which are made up of multiple minority communities. 'New maps will work toward insuring that we will maximize the ability of Texas to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice,' he said in an interview with Fox 4 Dallas-Fort Worth. 'This is shameless, shameless, the mid-decade redistricting that they're doing at the orders of Donald Trump,' Pelosi said Wednesday at the 'Stop the Texas Takeover' event. 'And this is what we're doing in California. We're saying to the Texans, 'You shouldn't be going down this path. We go down this path, we'll go down together.'' If California Democrats pursue partisan redistricting in time for next year's midterm election, the Legislature, in which Democrats hold a supermajority, could place the matter on the ballot during a special election that probably would take place in November. State lawmakers also could opt to make the change through legislation, though that probably would be vulnerable to a legal challenge. Nonpartisan congressional redistricting was one of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's priorities when it was approved by voters in 2010. Schwarzenegger hasn't weighed in on the state potentially rescinding the reform. But the director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute, which includes such political reforms among its top priorities, warned that weakening California's system would be out of sync with the state's values. 'We're in a scary position with all this talk of this gerrymandering arms race between Texas and California,' said Conyers Davis, global director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy. 'It's really a race to the bottom for voters in both states and the entire country as a whole. We should be celebrating California's citizen redistricting commission and looking to expand that model into other states, not looking for political ways to dismember it and erode its powers.' The state Republican Party, which opposed the creation of the redistricting commission, now supports the body in the face of a proposal that would cost it seats. 'To sort of start to mess with it right at this point in time, it just kind of undermines the whole independent redistricting commission that everybody has come to rely on,' said Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party. 'And I don't know what it will look like constitutionally.' Asked about Texas, she demurred, saying she was focused on California. State Democrats, who also opposed the creation of the commission, cheered the potential response to Texas. 'Trump and Republicans — from D.C. to Texas — are attempting to rewrite the rules of our democracy,' said Rusty Hicks, chairman of the California Democratic Party. 'With so much at stake, California may be left with little choice but to fight fire with fire to protect and preserve our democracy.' Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.
New York Times
12 hours ago
- New York Times
At Redistricting Hearing, Texas Democrats Attack Silent Republicans
Scores of people from across Texas packed into the State Capitol in Austin on Thursday to testify against a Republican plan, pushed by President Trump, to redraw congressional districts and protect the party's slender majority in the U.S. House. The public hearing, before a 21-member select committee of the Texas House on redistricting, was the first since Gov. Greg Abbott directed state lawmakers to redraw congressional lines during a 30-day special session of the Legislature. No maps with new district lines have been publicly proposed yet by Republican leaders in the Legislature, and none were expected before the initial public hearings. Two more such hearings are set for Houston on Saturday and the Dallas area next Tuesday. So those testifying on Thursday were left to comment on the idea of a rare mid-decade redistricting, and Mr. Trump's stated wish that Texas Republicans should produce maps that create five additional Republican seats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The state has 38 congressional seats, 25 of which are currently held by Republicans. 'I am dismayed that the legislative session is not focused, first and foremost, on flood relief,' said Robin Peeples, a software designer from Temple, Texas. She added that redistricting 'should not be shoved through so quickly at a time when we're dealing with a disaster in the state.' State Representative Jon Rosenthal, the top Democrat on the committee, responded, 'I think you are the most important person we need to listen to.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
