They kind of go together like babies and puppies.
And yet there is an increasing volume from opponents of the system we have here in California that allows the voters to affirm, elect and re-elect judges. Or to turn them out in favor of another candidate. Opponents of this system suggest that judges should be beyond the political gamesmanship and not have to face the voters.
I think this is a great idea if the alternative was the system in place in El Salvador where attorneys nominate judges.
But back here in California a better idea is to encourage greater voter participation.
Orange County provides several great examples of how voters were informed and did the right thing. Back in 2002 Judge Ronald Kline had been charged with possessing a personal stockpile or child pornography AFTER filing had closed. Judge Kline had drew no opponent as is the case in most judicial races and so he was to be unopposed. But numerous media and party officials and write-in candidates waged a battle and John Adams a local business attorney was elected by write-in vote. I along with others advised Adams on his campaign. The voters got it.
Likewise this past Primary Election a well respected bench officer, Judge John Nguyen was challenged by an attorney who had a grudge against the judge over a decision he had handed down. The community, including a coalition of both Democrats and Republicans rallied around Judge Nguyen and he won handily.
Although it is a frustrating example for many, the marriage issue is one that demonstrates the strength of our current system. California voters passed Proposition 22 that dictated marriage would be only between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court ruled that this measure was unconstitutional. Rather than threaten the recall of the justices and wage a political campaign against them, the activists set out to change the constitution. We don’t need to change the players, we can simply change the rules that they play by.
Recently former Governors Pete Wilson and Gray Davis have weighed in on the politicization of the bench. Wilson actually suggested changing the state constitution requiring candidate questionnaires sent to judges be annotated with a disclaimer that basically says that the most ethical thing to do is to not respond.
Governor Davis’ proposal was to do background checks on all judicial candidates, perhaps having Bar Association taking on this task. It is unclear who would pay for it and unclear whether the voters would have any confidence in the report.
The system is not perfect. Churchill’s wisdom applies.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.