AB 1958 is Vital to Make the RJA as Consistent as Possible Throughout California

Editor's Note: The Racial Justice Act prohibits bias or discrimination in charging, conviction, and sentencing based on a defendant's race, ethnicity, or national origin. Its implementation, however, has been slow-going. Many District Attorneys are refusing to hand over the data necessary to file statistical claims. Judges are interpreting the RJA according to their own understanding of race, the law, and what they think the proper remedy is. This amendment to the law under AB 1958 seeks to clarify and make the RJA consistent. Our organizer joined the Author of thie Bill, Assemblymember Kalra and Co-sponsors of the bill to give testimony at the Assembly Public Justice Committee on April 7, 2026.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsgdjK2Fkbo

My name is Cecilia Chavez, I’m an organizer with Silicon Valley De-Bug, a long-standing community organization based in San Jose that supports families and loved ones across CA who are facing the court systems. As proud co-sponsor of the bill, we see this a vital need to clarify and make the RJA as consistent as possible throughout California. We support over ten different directly impacted community organizations across California who are actively participating and supporting families in court who are seeking relief under the RJA. The procedural barriers that many families have faced could be solved with the clarification that is spelled out under AB 1958.

We’ve sat in courtrooms for RJA hearings all the way from San Diego, Orange County, San Mateo, Yolo, Contra Costa, and especially our own Santa Clara County, and in most cases, the hold up has been the access to information to sustain a claim. Although data accessibility has been addressed in another bill, its access in a timely manner continues to be prevalent.

We’ve heard prosecutors say that data collection would take years, in some cases even up to 5-10 years to produce all while incarcerated loved ones wait for their day in court.  Other prosecutors have stated that the defense was going on “fishing expeditions” and wanted to limit the access to the data already produced. In the same county, DA’s are restricting the use of the data that was produced for one case to be used in another case, even though the data fields requested were the same. This delay in access is just one barrier that loved one’s face. If you couple that with not only needing to show a disparity with the limited data but also having to show non-statistical evidence, we land at the current place that we’re at; people having to wait years to have their claim denied because of the way that court interprets the RJA.

What we are saying is simple: if data already exists and has been made available to the defense, make that data accessible for similar cases. And if there is enough statistical data to show disparities, that should be enough to move forward with a claim and allow the court to analyze if a violation has been committed.

For more about the Racial Justice Act please visit rjaction.org