Connect with us

California

After exam fiasco, California State Bar faces deeper financial crisis

Published

on

After exam fiasco, California State Bar faces deeper financial crisis


The California State Bar’s botched roll out of a new exam — a move that the cash-strapped agency made in the hopes of saving money — could ultimately end up costing it an additional $5.6 million.

Leah T. Wilson, executive director of the State Bar, told state lawmakers at a Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday that the agency expects to pay around $3 million to offer free exams to test takers, an additional $2 million to book in-person testing sites in July, and $620,000 to return the test to its traditional system of multiple-choice questions in July.

Wilson, who announced last week she will step down when her term ends this summer, revealed the costs during a 90-minute hearing called by Sen. Thomas J. Umberg (D-Orange), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to find out what went so “spectacularly wrong.”

Chaos ensued in February when thousands of test takers seeking to practice law in California sat for the new exam. Some reported they couldn’t log into the exam because online testing platforms repeatedly crashed. Many experienced screen lags and error messages, struggled to finish and save essays and complained of multiple-choice questions that were worded improperly and included typos.

Advertisement

“The question is, how did we come to this place?” Umberg said at the beginning of the hearing. “And how do we make sure we never ever come back to this place?”

Last year, the State Bar was on the verge of a financial crisis when it announced a plan to develop a new bar exam: its 2024 budget forecast a deficit of $3.8 million in its admissions fund, which deals with fees and expenses related to administering the bar exam. The fund, it warned, faced insolvency in 2026.

The agency made plans to ditch the traditional national bar exam, which requires test takers sit in-person, and develop its own exam that would allow for remote testing. The State Bar promoted its plan as a “historic agreement” that would save up to $3.8 million a year.

It’s unclear how much the State Bar could pay next year if it goes back to experimenting with its own exam. Its expenses are likely to shift as it pursues a lawsuit against Meazure Learning, the vendor that administered the February test.

But the cost to the State Bar is not just financial. After the exam debacle, the agency faces the embarrassment of reverting to traditional in-person exams in July and the prospect of more scrutiny.

Advertisement

After hearing from February test takers, law school deans and leaders of the State Bar, the Senate committee approved an independent review of the exam by the California State Auditor.

Test taker Andrea Lynch told lawmakers she faced constant disruptions during the exam from proctors, technical glitches and computer crashes. Near the end, as she prepared to begin a final section of the exam, a message popped up telling her her exam had been submitted before she’d even seen the questions.

“This was just not a technical failure,” Lynch told lawmakers. “It was a systemic failure, a breakdown in the integrity, accessibility and fairness of one of the most important professional milestones in the legal profession. I urge this committee to consider what it means when a test intended to uphold justice fails to deliver it to its own applicants.”

The State Bar has filed a civil complaint against Meazure Learning in Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing the vendor of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract by claiming it could administer a remote and in-person exam in a two-day window.

But critics of the State Bar argue that agency leadership bears responsibility for failing to take enough time to develop the new test.

Advertisement

Jessica Berg, Dean of UC Davis School of Law, told lawmakers that the State Bar’s rush to roll out of the bar exam and lack of transparency throughout the process caused financial and emotional harm to the test takers and significant financial and reputational harm to the State Bar and the state of California.

“The problems that we saw with the bar exam were absolutely predictable and they rest on two pieces of what was going on here — problems with the substance of the exam and problems with the administration of the exam,” Berg said.

The hearing explored problems with the exam’s multiple-choice questions.

Two weeks ago, the State Bar revealed that its independent psychometrician — who measures the reliability of exams and recommends scoring adjustments, but is not a lawyer — drafted a subset of 29 multiple-choice questions using artificial intelligence.

Under questioning by Umberg, Wilson, the State Bar’s executive director, admitted “no lawyer assisted in the initial drafting.” She said she did not find out until after the exam that some questions were drafted by Chat GPT.

Advertisement

Wilson also admitted that the State Bar did not copy edit test questions ahead of the exam.

Asked when she learned that some multiple-choice questions had typos, Wilson said after the exam “when I saw it on Reddit.”

Then, Sen. Umberg raised a new concern: the fairness of exam grading.

The State Bar announced Monday that the pass rate for the February exam was 55.9%, the highest spring pass rate since 1965. Last February, the pass rate was significantly lower at 33.9%.

“I don’t think anyone here has any interest in going back and revisiting this issue for those who pass the bar, but what it tells me is that there are issues with respect to grading,” Umberg said.

Advertisement

“How do you account for this huge disparity between what happened in the February bar in terms of passage rate and what’s happened historically?” he asked.

Alex Chan, an attorney who serves as chair of the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners, said that despite the bar exam’s problems, the grading process remained rigorous and consistent with previous administrations. He attributed the high passing score to the California Supreme Court’s approval of his committee’s petition to lower the total raw passing score for general bar exam takers to 534 points or higher on the essay, performance test and multiple-choice questions.

“The scoring adjustments were not designed to be lenient in any way,” Chan said. “They were designed to be fair and measured in light of the circumstances and the unprecedented and well documented technical failures.”

Wilson also noted that the February 2025 test takers had a higher average raw score on the written section of the bar exam than their 2024 or 2023 cohorts. “This is without any psychometric adjustment,” she said. “So looking apples to apples, these 2025 test takers performed better.”

“So this deviation was because they were smarter,” said Umberg. “What would the passage rate have been if the score wasn’t lowered?”

Advertisement

Donna S. Hershkowitz, the State Bar’s chief of admissions, said the overall pass rate would have been 46.9% — still significantly higher than normal— if the minimum raw passing score had not been lowered.

“I’ll be curious as to what happens next year when we use the old format,” Umberg said. “In any event — again to assure those who pass — we’re not going to go back.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

California

Trump claims without proof Democrats are ‘trying to steal’ California primaries

Published

on

Trump claims without proof Democrats are ‘trying to steal’ California primaries


Donald Trump has alleged without evidence that Democrats are cheating in California’s primaries and claimed in a late-night social media post that the US attorney’s office in Los Angeles was investigating.

As counting continues in the most populous state in the US, the president’s unfounded remarks are likely to further alarm election observers, who have warned of the risk of escalating misinformation in the absence of a final result.

Trump has a history of undermining election results that don’t go in his favor. He has repeatedly alleged that Democrats “stole” the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden, despite privately admitting his defeat, according to aides.

At 12.48am on Thursday, Trump posted: “The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS.”

Advertisement

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” he said 17 minutes later in another post on his Truth Social platform. “Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Why the vote counting DELAY??? President DJT”.

The US attorney’s office said it had no comment on Trump’s claim that his allegations of cheating are “under investigation” by US attorneys. The Department of Justice in Washington DC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The president presented no substantive basis for questioning the legitimacy of the election.

Mail-in ballots factor heavily in California political races – typically about 80% of votes cast – and those ballots can be counted up to a week after election day, as long as they are postmarked before election day.

California uses a “jungle” primary process, in which the two candidates with the most votes advance to a runoff – regardless of their political party – unless one candidate wins an outright majority. A huge field of 61 candidates fragmented the vote in the race for governor, but Republicans have coalesced around Steve Hilton. Together with Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer, the three are in a contest that remains too close to call as votes are tallied.

Advertisement

Mail-in ballots tend to favor Democrats, which implies the possibility that Hilton – whom Trump has endorsed – may drop into third place by the time all the ballots are counted.

The last Republican to win the California gubernatorial race was Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. Republicans have polled just under 40% in each of the last four contests.

Last month Gavin Newsom sent a letter to elections officials to thank them for their work while warning that a long process invites disingenuous accusations of misconduct.

“We must acknowledge that the longer the vote count takes, the more mis- and dis-information spreads,” wrote the California governor. “That means we must do all that we can to tabulate votes quickly and accurately. Time is of the essence in preventing election lies from taking root.”

On Wednesday evening, election observers echoed those concerns. “Conducting elections with integrity and ensuring that every eligible vote is counted are fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our democracy,” said Mike DuHaime of the Democracy Defense Project, a bipartisan effort to combat election misinformation.

Advertisement

“At the same time, prolonged delays in ballot tabulation, such as those that have become increasingly common in California, can undermine public trust and create unnecessary uncertainty around election outcomes,” DuHaime added. “The longer election results remain unresolved, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and speculation to spread online, eroding confidence in our electoral process. Accuracy must always remain the highest priority, but accuracy and timeliness are not mutually exclusive.”



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California man charged with bringing explosives to Sacramento airport after repeatedly calling FBI tip line | CNN

Published

on

California man charged with bringing explosives to Sacramento airport after repeatedly calling FBI tip line | CNN


A California man was charged Tuesday after authorities say he brought an explosive device and other weapons through a security checkpoint at Sacramento International Airport.

Kimani Osayande Jones, who also uses the last name Jackson, attempted to bring an improvised explosive device, a knife and other bladed weapons, a torch lighter and zip ties through a TSA security checkpoint on May 30, according to court documents filed Tuesday in the Eastern District of California.

Officials believe Jones, 49, repeatedly called the FBI tip line to report he was being threatened and intimidated in the months leading up to the incident.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office bomb technicians safely removed the explosive device and tested its powder and fuse, both of which were determined to be “viable and energetic,” officials say.

Advertisement

Investigators said the device had the potential to damage an aircraft and cause a loss of cabin pressure.

Jones’ other luggage, which had already been through security and loaded onto an American Airlines flight to Charlotte, North Carolina, was hand-searched and examined by a canine unit upon arrival, and investigators said nothing “illegal or concerning” was found.

Jones has been charged in federal court with unlawful possession of explosive material at an airport. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted.

His attorney, Meghan McLoughlin, told CNN in a statement: “There is often more to these cases than the government’s allegations, and that the criminal process will reveal Mr. Jones’ story as well.”

Multiple cell phones and repeated FBI tip line calls

The Sacramento resident went through security on May 30 wearing a face covering and blue latex gloves, court documents say.

Advertisement

When officers found the explosive device and other items in Jones’ carry-on bag, he told them he was unaware the items were in his possession and said “he would be okay with just discarding them.” When authorities informed him that explosive material could not simply be thrown away, he denied ownership of the backpack.

Jones also had five mobile phones in his possession. The cameras on each phone had been covered with painter’s tape, which authorities believe was intended to prevent his surroundings from being recorded.

One phone contained a 15-minute timer ready to start and another had a message from an unknown number on the screen stating, “we will be awaiting your call,” according to court documents.

An individual police believe to be Jones made approximately 13 calls to the FBI tip line leading up to the incident, beginning in March.

On May 24, the caller reported being followed to and from a doctor’s appointment and described what he said were threats and intimidation by another individual.

Advertisement

He said he was “being coerced in sleep to say certain phrases through digital media” and described “hearing sounds coming through walls, window panes, or even outside, attributing the outside sounds to drones,” court documents say. The call was ultimately terminated because of its “nonsensical nature.”

On the day of the incident, the same caller again contacted the FBI tip line, alleging that several individuals were threatening him throughout the past year through “cyber means.” He also referenced exercising his Second Amendment rights while denying any intention to harm others.

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office also noted it had prior contact with Jones, “wherein he had a history of being paranoid.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

California may take weeks to finalize primary results. ‘This is normal’

Published

on

California may take weeks to finalize primary results. ‘This is normal’


play

Although results from California’s primary election began rolling in on Tuesday, June 2, it could take days or even weeks before the final counts are certified. 

“This is normal … We have a process that by law ensures both voting rights and the integrity of elections, so I would call on all Californians to be patient,” Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said in a June 2 news release.

Advertisement

The Golden State’s lengthy vote-counting process has “become a national narrative about California elections,” according to Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego.

“In California, it takes a long time to certify votes, to verify the signatures, to then count the ballots; all of that process takes a while,” Kousser said in an interview last week. “It may take a while for us to learn who the top candidates who emerge are.”

Here are some factors behind California’s lengthy vote-counting process. 

Mail-in ballots come with added verification step 

With each mail-in ballot cast, elections officials must compare the signature on a returned vote-by-mail envelope to the voter’s signature on their voter registration card. Various factors go into determining whether the signatures match, including the slant of the signature, whether it is printed or written in cursive, and the size, proportions, or scale. 

Vote-by-mail ballots were Californians’ preferred voting method in both the 2024 primary and general elections, with drop-off locations — such as ballot drop boxes and voting centers — the most popular way to return mail-in ballots. 

Advertisement

During California’s 2024 primary, more than 7.7 million votes were cast statewide, and 90 percent of those were mail-in ballots. This means election officials had to verify the signatures on more than 6.8 million ballots before they could be counted. For the November 2024 general election, 80% of cast ballots, or about 13 million, were vote-by-mail. 

Reviewing conditional voter and provisional ballots 

California also allows for same-day voter registration, also known as conditional voter registration. Voters who need to register, or re-register, within 14 days of an election can do so at their county elections office, polling place, or vote center. These ballots will be processed and counted after the county elections office has completed the voter registration process. 

In addition to conditional voter ballots, there are provisional ballots that must be verified before they are counted. Voters cast provisional ballots for a wide array of reasons, including if their name does not appear at a polling place or if they’ve made a mistake on their ballot. After a voter casts a provisional ballot, it will not be counted until election officials have confirmed that the voter is registered to vote in that county and has not already voted in that election. 

Vote-by-mail ballots can be sent on Election Day 

Though state officials recommend voters mail their ballots sooner rather than later, state law allows vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a specified window afterward, thereby extending the tallying process. 

Advertisement

For the primary, ballots needed to be postmarked on or before June 2 and received by county elections office no later than June 10.  

California is, well, big 

California is the most populous state in the nation. And, as of May 18, a record total of 23,155,447 Californians were registered to vote. 

While not all registered voters are expected to have voted, county election officials estimate that more than 5 million ballots were cast statewide. 

When to expect final results 

Under state law, county elections officials are required to report the results for most ballots by June 15, or 13 days after the election, according to Weber. However, some ballots can take counties up to 30 days to count every ballot and then conduct a post-election audit. 

State law requires county elections officials to report final official results to state officials July 3. State officials then have until July 10 to certify the results of the election.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending