County Deputy D.A. Assn. Calls for Bird’s Ouster

A group that represents Los Angeles County prosecutors urged voters Tuesday to turn Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird out of office in the state Supreme Court retention election next November.

“The decisions of Rose Bird in criminal cases reflect a deep and continuing anti-law enforcement and anti-death penalty bias that renders her unsuitable to serve as a justice of the California Supreme Court. . . .,” said a statement released by the Los Angeles County Assn. of Deputy District Attorneys. About 400 of the county’s 700 prosecutors are members.

“By voting no on Rose Bird, the voters of this state will best serve the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the public’s corresponding right to safety and freedom from crime,” the statement said.

Bird was singled out for attack because she is the only sitting Supreme Court justice who has never voted to affirm the death penalty, said Deputy Dist. Atty. Elton Sims, president of the association. Sims also said prosecutors believe that Bird has done a poor job of managing the court.

A spokesman for Bird’s reelection organization, the Committee to Conserve the Courts, said Tuesday, “It’s unfortunate that the deputy district attorneys haven’t found the time to read the court decisions. . . .”

38 of 41 Death Penalties Reversed

“Our courts send more criminals to prison and for longer sentences than at any time in California history,” said Steven M. Glazer, the committee spokesman. “California has more criminals in prisons per capita than any other nation in the world, except (the Republic of) South Africa and the Soviet Union.”

Glazer said the chief justice votes to uphold the prosecution’s position “almost 90% of the time,” but he conceded that Sims was correct when he said Bird has never voted to affirm the death penalty.

Five other justices, Glazer said, have each voted to affirm the death penalty only once since it was reintroduced in California in 1977. Since that time the state Supreme Court has reviewed 41 death penalty cases, reversing all but three.

The decision to oppose Bird’s retention was made at an association board meeting Oct. 2, Sims said. Seventeen of the association’s 18 board members voted to approve the statement released Tuesday, Sims said.

One board member, whom he did not identify, voted against the measure. “This person was of the opinion that by endorsing the recall of Rose Bird . . . that we are somehow attempting to pack the court, as President Roosevelt tried to do (with the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937). . . ,” Sims said.

The California District Attorneys Assn. went on record earlier this year as opposing Bird’s retention. That action has been criticized by some Bird supporters, who contend that the group is prohibited from engaging in electoral politics by its tax-exempt status.

Sims said his group is also tax-exempt but that he is unconcerned about a possible conflict.

“Our organization loses money every year,” he said, “so if they make us file tax returns as a profit-making organization, we’re willing to accept that as a consequence of exercising our First Amendment rights.”

Six of the seven Supreme Court justices face election next year. Appointed by the governor, the justices must be confirmed by the voters every 12 years in unopposed elections. If a majority votes against keeping a justice on the court, the governor appoints a successor.

A day after anti-Bird forces announced a radio advertising campaign aimed at defeating the chief justice, pro-Bird advertisements appeared Tuesday in newspapers throughout the state. The ads urge the public to “Join us in supporting California’s courageous chief justice, Rose Elizabeth Bird,” and include a cutout coupon with which supporters can send their names and contributions to the Committee to Conserve the Courts.

Glazer said the ad campaign is “our early attempt to reach out to people in the grass roots and let them know we’re in business and gearing up. We want to give as many supporters as possible an opportunity to participate in our effort to retain the chief justice.”