Metnews is reporting that George Runner is giving up his bid to force district elections for judges in LA County.
When voters conslidated Municipal and Superior courts they did harm to large counties like LA. It made sense not to duplicate services in small counties with two sets of judges. The net effect in large counties is to ignore regional representation in judges. Pomona, Palmdale, West Hollywood and Compton are all different and are no longer represented.
Look at the reasons for opposition below. If judges are to sit in one place services would have to be provided there. Oh my!
The article portions relevant to this are pasted below.
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
A proposed constitutional amendment that would have required that Los Angeles Superior Court judges be elected by district, with each district to elect no more than 36 judges, was withdrawn yesterday by its sponsors.
A statement distributed by the office of Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, said the amendment was withdrawn in the face of opposition from the Judicial Council and a union representing public workers.
The statement read in part:
“Currently, incumbent judges have almost no significant political challenge because of the exorbitant costs facing any potential challenger given the task of running countywide in a county of ten million people. Therefore there is little to no accountability within the judicial system.
“The judges are a formidable opponent and they are very committed to protecting the status quo and thus ensure that their incumbent judges are protected from any legitimate challengers. This unfortunately also protects judges from any additional accountability no matter their performance.
“With respect to SCA 16, Judicial Council has made statements that are factually incorrect and this apparently was sufficient to bring opposition from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) which presented an insurmountable hurdle at this time, which prompted us to withdraw the measure from committee.”
The statement was issued in the name of Runner and his co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Alarcon, D-Van Nuys. But a spokesman for Alarcon said late yesterday that the senator had not authorized the issuance of the statement, which promised a renewed effort to pass the amendment next year.
Judicial Council Opposition
June Clark, a senior attorney for the Judicial Council who lobbied against SCA 16, said she had not seen the statement and could not comment on it. She did, however, supply a copy of the council’s letter of opposition.
Clark argued on behalf of the council that the amendment was unclear as to whether the new districts would be used for election purposes only, or for administrative purposes as well, and that the amendment would cause problems in either event.
If judges were required to actually sit in the districts from which they were elected, it would be necessary to align court-required services such as probation, prosecution, mental health, and legal aid with the new districts, Clark wrote, potentially causing duplication and confusion.
If, on the other hand, the districts were used for election purposes only, the accountability sought by the sponsors would not exist because voters would be casting ballots on candidates who would not necessarily be hearing cases from those voters’ districts, the attorney argued.