PRISON RULING RATTLES CALIFORNIA BUDGET

SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on California's
overcrowded prisons put a fresh spotlight on the state's fiscal
problems, ratcheting up the pressure on Sacramento's political
factions to reach a budget deal.

The high court Monday upheld a lower court ruling that gave California
two years to cut its prison population by 33,630, reducing the inmate
population to 109,805 from 143,435.

The issues raised by the ruling were hardly a surprise in California,
where Gov. Jerry Brown last month signed into law a plan to move
people convicted of crimes deemed "non-serious, nonviolent and
nonsexual" to county jails with some of the costs paid by the state.

But that plan hinges on a budget deal. Mr. Brown wants the state
legislature to call an election asking voters to extend some tax
increases set to expire, but has failed to gain enough support from
lawmakers.

Mr. Brown and his allies, along with state prison officials, were
arguing Monday and Tuesday that the high court decision validates his
"realignment" plan, which would shift inmates but also state programs
such as court security and foster care to counties. The prison plan is
laid out in California Assembly Bill 109.

"In its ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that the enactment of AB
109 is key to meeting this obligation. We must now secure full and
constitutionally guaranteed funding to put into effect all the
realignment provisions contained in AB 109." Mr. Brown said in a
statement Monday.

Republican leaders. who are wary of extending the tax increases said
there are other ways to reduce pressure on prisons-for instance, by
building more of them. Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton said he
would look to accelerate the construction of new prison facilities to
help satisfy the court order.

"The state has not reacted quickly enough to federal concerns, and
that sluggish response goes beyond any one administration," he said.

Oscar Hidalgo, a spokesman for the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, said it may be financially difficult
to build and staff new prisons at a time when California is seriously
cash-strapped.

Mr. Brown has argued the state would save money with the realignment
plan because counties can provide some services more efficiently. Some
political observers in the nation's most populous state suggested that
Mr. Brown, at least for now, may have a bit of momentum in his effort
to address the state's $9.6 billion budget shortfall.

"It certainly reinforces the message of Mr. Brown, which is that we
don't have the revenue to take care of our obligations," said Mark
Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, a
nonpartisan think tank.

The governor "has had a very difficult time convincing legislators
that this is something that needs to be done," said Dan Schnur,
director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University
of Southern California. But "the court probably sealed the deal for
him. Now it's not just the prospect of criminals being released, it's
a reality" unless something is done.

Mr. Brown promised in his gubernatorial campaign last year not to
raise or extend taxes without voter approval through California's
ballot-initiative process.

Armed with the court decision, California prison officials were
turning up the pressure on lawmakers to find the money to move state
inmates to county lockups. They said the realignment plan is their
best shot at obeying the Supreme Court order without putting inmates
back on the street.

"Absent realignment and getting the right inmates in the right
facilities, I have some serious concerns," said Matthew Cate,
secretary of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.

Questions remained about how far the plan would go to fulfill the high
court's order. Mr. Brown's plan would move 18,446 low-level offenders
to counties in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, a number that
would rise to a total of 32,728 by the 2013 fiscal year.

But about 20,000 California prisoners, including many low-level
offenders, already live outside of state prisons-for instance,
fighting forest fires in so-called fire camps.

So it was unclear what the impact would be on state-prison
populations, said Mr. Hidalgo, the spokesman for the corrections department.

Still, Mr. Brown's plan would significantly lower the burden on state
prisons' reception centers, which take in new prisoners, Mr. Hidalgo
said, because those convicts would go directly to counties instead.
Mr. Hidalgo said, California would study other options, such as moving
more inmates to out-of-state prisons and paying those states. Even in
a best-case scenario, he said, Mr. Brown's plan would account for
perhaps 30,000 inmates. The state may also ask the court to allow it
three years, instead of two, to reach the target, he added.

Some of that space could then be used to house inmates to reduce
overcrowding.

County officials emphasized that Gov. Brown's plan will only work if
they get enough money to house the realigned inmates.

Greg Munks, the sheriff in San Mateo County south of San Francisco,
said the plan would move 500 inmates to his lockup, which already is
at 120% of capacity at 1,000 inmates. The county is building a new
jail but it won't be ready for about four years.

Mr. Munks said the added prisoners could force him to release some
inmates. "I believe the counties can execute the governor's plan, but
it will be nearly impossible to do without extra funding," Mr. Munks
said.

Some also question whether there are enough county beds for the
transferred state inmates. Greg Ahern, vice president of the
California Sheriff's Association, Mr. Ahern estimated there are just
10,000 to 20,000 extra beds available in the system.

Meanwhile, counties' public-safety budgets have been slashed due to
the recession. Mr. Ahern, who is also sheriff of Alameda County east
of San Francisco, said that over the last three years, police layoffs
and other cuts in public safety have hurt local policing and the
situation could worsen if the state doesn't provide funding.

"You can't expect a good outcome for what the courts want us to do
without significant help from the state," said Mr. Ahern.

Several other states also are contending with inadequate prisons.
Alabama's are more overcrowded than those in California, operating at
190% of capacity, said Alabama state finance director David Perry.
That has triggered litigation alleging cruel and unusual punishment,
similar to what California faced, Mr. Perry said. But Mr. Perry said
that despite the crowding, Alabama has "significantly better [prison]
medical care than what was documented in California."

Past lawsuits against the state regarding prison crowding have been
successfully defended, a spokesman for the Alabama Department of
Corrections said.

Last week, Mr. Perry said, he toured an Alabama medium-security
correctional facility, which is operating at about 200% capacity. He
saw a gymnasium-sized room where nearly 300 inmates sleep on bunk
beds. But, he said, many inmates were playing sports, lifting weights,
watching TV or reading books. "It did not seem like an unpleasant
place to stay," Mr. Perry said.

Bills pending before the Alabama legislature would help reduce
overcrowding by placing non-violent inmates in rehabilitation
programs. If passed, that could reduce the prison population by 5,000
inmates over the next five years, Mr. Perry said.