San Francisco ballot initiative establishes DV right to counsel pilot
While a state may have many statutes, court decisions, or court rules governing appointment of counsel for a particular subject area, a "Key Development" is a statute/decision/rule that prevails over the others (example: a state high court decision finding a categorical right to counsel in guardianships cases takes precedence over a statute saying appointment in guardianship cases is discretionary).
06/06/2022, Legislation, Domestic Violence - Alleged Victim
In June 2022, San Francisco voters enacted Proposition D with 60% of the vote. The measure creates the Office of Victim and Witness Rights and requires the Director of the Office to introduce an ordinance proposing a one-year domestic violence right to counsel counsel pilot program that will provide legal services to any DV victim. The City's fiscal investment in the pilot is limited to "the cost of staff support for program coordination among the City, the Superior Court, non-profit organizations, and others involved in the Pilot Program", so it appears the legal services will not initially be funded, but the pilot has an evaluation component. According to the ordinance statement, there are over 7,000 DV complaints every year in San Francisco.
Previously, a DV survivor penned a piece to SFGate explaining why the City needed to pass Prop D.
If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.
Appointment of Counsel: categorical Qualified: yes