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
Miami Herald
14 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Calif., Illinois may fight new Texas congressional maps with their own
As the Texas Legislature plans to redraw congressional maps in an effort to increase Republican members in the U.S. House, the governors of California and Illinois may devise their own new borders. Traditionally, the boundaries are changed every 10 years with the latest U.S. Census data but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called a special legislative session after pressure from the White House to preserve the GOP majority in the U.S. House. President Donald Trump believes an additional five seats could be created by changing the borders. Of the state's 38 districts, 25 are held by Republicans. Democrats hold seats in big cities of Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, Laredo, McAllen, San Antonio. Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, Republicans hold a 219-212 advantage in the House with four vacancies -- three Democrats who died and one Republican who resigned this week. More than a dozen Texas House members flew to Illinois and California -- two blue states -- on Friday for a meeting with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzkeper, during which they revealed their intentions. 'Donald Trump called up Governor Abbott for one simple reason: to rig the 2026 elections. California's moral high ground means nothing if we're powerless because of it,' Newsom said after meeting with Democrats from the Texas House. 'This moment requires us to be prepared to fight fire with fire. Whether that's a special election, a ballot initiative, a bill, a fight in court. If they proceed in Texas, we will be ready.' 'This is not a bluff. This is real, and trust me, it's more real after listening to these leaders today, how existential this is,' Newsom said. As the most populous state in the nation, California has 43 Democratic members of the house and nine Republican members, while Illinois is represented by 14 Democrats and three Republicans. 'Everything is on the table,' Pritzer said. The Illinois governor said he doesn't want to redraw the maps but 'if they're going to take this drastic action, then we might also take drastic action to respond.' 'We want the country to understand [that] what's going on in Texas is a national battle,' State Rep. Richard Pena Raymond, a Democrat from Laredo, said. Raymond told Pritzner that redistricting is 'clearly aimed at affecting the entire country.' Responsibility for determining Congressional district maps differs from state to state. In California, an independent commission approved by voters in 2010 works on the maps. Illinois maps, on the other hand, are put together by the state lawmakers have been drawn strongly to favor the Democrat Party in the state. Newsom said he is considering having a referendum to change the rules before the 2026 election, unless the Legislature comes up with another solution, which would take two-thirds of legislators voting in favor of. 'We have to fight fire with fire,' Newsom said. Two other Democratic governors are considering new maps -- Phil Murphy in New Jersey and Kathy Hochul in New York. 'There's other states that are violating the rules,' Hochul said during a news conference on Thursday. 'I'm going to look at it closely with Hakeem Jeffries,' a New York member of the House, as well has House minority leader. In New York, Democrats have a 19-7 advantage as a result of their districting maps. 'It's deplorable,' Murphy said during an interview at the summer meeting of the bipartisan National Governors Association in Colorado Springs. 'If they're going to play these games, we're going to have to be just as aggressive. We can't bring a knife to a gunfight.' Democrats hold nine of the 12 seats in New Jersey. In Florida, the state Supreme Court on July 17 upheld its newest congressional map. He said he believes the state had been 'malappropriated' and redistricting 'would be appropriate' in a few years. Florida's congressional delegation is controlled by Republicans, 20-8. In Ohio, legislators are required to redraw maps before 2026. The GOP has 10 of the 15 seats. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis is against redistricting more frequently. The state's maps are overseen by an independent commission and it's eight U.S. House seats are evenly split 4-4. Texas last redrew its borders in mid-cycle in 2003 after the GOP gained control of both chambers for the first time since Reconstruction. In Texas, Abbott noted a July 7 letter from the Justice Department that said majority Black and Hispanic districts in Dallas need to be redrawn based on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year. The DOJ said those districts are 'unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,' but Abbott argued the opposite in 2021. In federal court in El Paso, he argued race had not been taken into account there. 'We are no longer compelled to have coalition districts,' Abbott said in an interview with KDFW in Dallas. U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, a San Antonio Democrat, appeared at a state House hearing. 'That's what's at stake here, whether you all are going to work for the people of Texas, as we used to do, to try to do, or whether you take your commandments from Donald Trump and the White House,' Castro said. 'I hope that you all will choose to do the business of the people of Texas, as this body has a history of being independent from the federal government.' Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Effort continues to fix South Dakota elections that don't need fixing
In the past few years, a certain segment of South Dakota society has become adamant about making specific improvements in the way we live. Is this a citizen quest for more education funding? No. Is it a movement to put often overlooked Native American issues at the front of the state agenda? No. Is it a grassroots effort to revamp the way South Dakotans pay taxes? No. This effort is aimed at cleaning up the state's elections. 'Hold on,' you might say. 'I didn't know there was a problem with our elections.' Well, there isn't. But that isn't keeping the issue from being front and center at the Legislature and in county commission meetings across the state. In the last legislative session there were more than 50 election-related bills introduced. About half of those had to deal with 'election integrity' in the areas of voter qualification, technology and security. That's a great deal of attention being paid to a part of government that, in the past, has been noted for working just fine. Some of these bills may be duplicates. It has become a practice in the Legislature to introduce similar bills in the Senate and in the House. That way, if cooler heads prevail in the Senate, there's still a similar bill in the House, where bad ideas go to flourish. Spurring on the quest for election integrity is an entity called South Dakota Canvassing Group. The group's mission statement is on its website: 'We are a volunteer organization working to restore free, fair, transparent and secure elections in South Dakota, now and for future generations.' Their work to 'restore' elections in South Dakota implies that voting here has gone off the rails. If the Canvassing Group wants to ferret out corruption and illegalities in elections, they're best off moving to another state. South Dakota, with a history of fair elections, doesn't need their help. According to a story by The Dakota Scout, many of the election integrity chasers in this state got their inspiration at a three-day event in Sioux Falls. It turns out that their North Star, their inspiration, their muse, is none other than Mike Lindell. He's not just the My Pillow guy; he's the My President's Election was Stolen guy. Lindell was, and continues to be, one of the staunchest supporters of the idea that Donald Trump was somehow cheated out of victory in the 2020 election. At his 2021 'Cyber Symposium' in Sioux Falls, Lindell spent so much time offering false claims about Dominion Voting Systems throwing the election to Joe Biden that he was recently sued for defaming one of the company's executives. The jury awarded the executive $2.3 million in damages. Some bills backed by the Canvassing Group were approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor: assigning a federal-only ballot to people who don't live permanently in the state, changing the definition of resident eligibility, designating county voter registration files as public records, changing the process for challenging someone's residency status, increasing the penalty for voting illegally, placing citizenship status on driver's licenses, and sending a constitutional amendment to voters clarifying that a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote in the state. However, just as Lindell continues to spout his falsehoods about the 2020 election, look for the Canvassing Group to keep up the pressure on legislators for more election integrity laws that aren't needed. On its website, the top issue on the group's want list is an effort to make Election Day a holiday. In the last session, this came to the Legislature in a bill sponsored by Dell Rapids Republican Tom Pischke. Pischke explained to the Senate State Affairs Committee that a holiday was needed because in some communities there are not enough poll workers nor enough polling places. He said he hoped to work on solutions to those problems without legislation, asking the committee to table the bill. Creating a Tuesday Election Day holiday might free up more people to work on the elections, but it could just as easily cut down on voter participation. Instead of looking ahead to how they'll mark their ballots, citizens could just as easily be looking ahead to using a vacation day on Monday to create a long weekend. South Dakota has a long history of running fair, accurate elections. For all their finger-pointing and hand-wringing, the Canvassing Group and the legislators who indulge them can't change that. Election integrity legislation amounts to nothing more than solutions in search of problems, trying to fix a system that doesn't need fixing. Dana Hess spent more than 25 years in South Dakota journalism, editing newspapers in Redfield, Milbank and Pierre. He's retired and lives in Brookings, working occasionally as a freelance writer. This article was originally published on South Dakota Searchlight. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Effort continues to fix South Dakota elections that don't need fixing
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
How redistricting in Texas and California could change the game for House elections
WASHINGTON — Congressional redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and California and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that could send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the House majority and blunt his agenda. Texas has 38 seats in the House of Representatives. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner in March. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries — literally and figuratively — to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, the Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. chair in constitutional law at the University of Colorado. Other states, including California, are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat or two at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually on claims of violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance and resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, 'Well, it doesn't say we can't do it more.'' Some states have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment — approved by state voters — that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five districts in the 2004 general election. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said redistricting is 'highly partisan by any measure.' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Washington state Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.' Askarinam writes for the Associated Press.
