PD Editorial: Viewing public gets a peek at state’s top court

From the inane to the insane, you can find examples every day on television or online. Oftentimes, it can’t be avoided.

If you’re willing to hunt, you might find the indispensable.

But one thing you can’t watch is a session of the U.S. Supreme Court, which arbitrates some of the most profound legal issues facing the country. California’s highest court has kept its doors closed to cameras, too.

Until now.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye recently told a joint session of the state Legislature that the state Supreme Court will begin streaming its hearings live on the Internet.

Cantil-Sakauye’s barrier-breaking announcement came as a brief aside in her annual State of the Judiciary address, a speech she used to underscore the vital importance of educating citizens about their government and how it works.

“I do believe that our public’s faith in our democratic institutions depends on their understanding and awareness of those institutions,” she said. “Justice (Anthony) Kennedy said democracy must be learned in each generation. It has to be taught.

“And so we are committed to civics,” Cantil-Sakauye continued. “I believe our commitment to civics is a reflection of our commitment to a functioning democracy and the fairness and justice that springs from that.”

California has a C-Span-style channel dedicated to state government; it broadcast Cantil-Sakauye’s speech. Local government meetings can be seen on TV or online in many communities, including Santa Rosa and Petaluma. Cameras have been allowed in trial courts since the mid-1980s, but higher courts have been slow to follow.

Since becoming chief justice five years ago, Cantil-Sakauye has emphasized openness and transparency. The state’s courts are upgrading their computer systems, and she initiated live streaming of the Judicial Council, the governing body for the courts.

Bringing cameras into state Supreme Court hearings is a natural progression. Live streaming will begin in May for hearings in San Francisco. Los Angeles sessions will come later because of technological limitations, court officials said.

We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will take note and open its proceedings to television and Internet broadcasts - and extend the option to other federal courts.

Anyone wanting to watch oral arguments at the high court must stand in line for one of the 400 or so seats in the gallery. For a major case - think Obamacare or marriage equality - you better line up a week in advance (and hope that the official guest list doesn’t fill all the seats).

A half-century ago, in a case involving Texas trial courts, Justice Potter Stewart said barring cameras from all hearings was “disturbingly alien” to the First Amendment and “an invitation to censorship.” Stewart was on the losing end of that decision, and his successors have shown little interest in bringing the high court into the electronic age.

Justices from both ends of the political spectrum have argued that cameras would cause lawyers (and maybe their colleagues) to grandstand, that only snippets of arguments would appear on network news and that only a few viewers would watch gavel-to-gavel coverage.

California is often described as a trend-setter on judicial issues. Perhaps broadcasts of the state Supreme Court here will persuade the justices in Washington that the nation’s viewers are ready for something more substantive than cat videos and hoverboard crashes.