Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Frist,

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) strongly supports recent legislative efforts to permit the televising of proceedings in federal court as well as the Supreme Court of the United States.

On September 9, 2005, the House passed by a 375-45 vote a courthouse security bill that includes provisions for televising proceedings in federal court. The White House opposes cameras in the courtroom, citing concerns about influencing court proceedings and compromising "the security of participants in the judicial process."

NAHJ disagrees.

We believe allowing cameras in federal court would enhance the public's understanding of the legal system. And with proceedings already televised for the other branches of government, from presidential news conferences to the sessions of both houses of Congress, it is time for the judiciary to join the 21st century.

Contemporaneously, the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 9 held a hearing on legislation, introduced by chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa, that would require the televising of federal court proceedings and Supreme Court sessions. Senator Specter argues that televising Supreme Court proceedings is necessary because the nine justices deal with "cutting-edge issues of our day." Although the Supreme Court on occasion permits audio recordings of its sessions, it continues to deny television access.

All 50 states permit cameras in state courts in one form or another. We submit the trend toward televising judicial proceedings arises from the ideal envisioned by the Founding Fathers: courtrooms should be open to the public.

Public access is further grounded on the fact that tax dollars support every aspect of the criminal justice system, including the building of courthouses, the providing of interpreters and the paying of judges' salaries.

Judges are the main opponents of cameras in the courtroom, and their objections are predominantly anecdotal. Based on their own experiences, they say cameras are obtrusive and negatively affect witnesses and lawyers. Research belies these claims. Take California – five years of exhaustive studies resulted in one inescapable conclusion: cameras in the courtroom had no impact on trial proceedings or the behavior of attorneys, witnesses or litigants, hence the birth of California Rule 980, which gives judges the discretion to permit cameras in their courtrooms.

On November 10, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor participated in an American Bar Association panel in Washington, D.C., on the "Role of the Judiciary in Promoting the Rule of Law." An audience member asked why cameras were not allowed in federal court, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice O'Connor expressed concerns after she witnessed the televised O.J. Simpson criminal trial in Los Angeles, calling the entire affair "sad." But Justice Kennedy – though ambivalent about cameras – noted that if the legal system is flawed, society "ought to know it."

NAHJ believes the public deserves to know what goes on in their tax-supported courtrooms. The time has come to permit televising of federal court proceedings, including the Supreme Court, especially with close 5-4 decisions on abortion, affirmative action, church-state, civil rights and other important areas that touch the lives of so many Americans.

Sincerely,

Veronica Villafañe
President, NAHJ

Iván Román
Executive Director, NAHJ

cc: Senator Arlen Specter
Senator Patrick Leahy