Mayor Avoids Stand on Rose Bird : Says His Decision of ‘Principle’ Is Based on Precedent

After studying the court record on the death penalty and anguishing over one of the most difficult decisions of his long political career, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley today announced that he will neither support nor oppose the November reelection bid of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird.

Bradley, the Democratic candidate for governor, called his a decision of “principle”--the principle of keeping partisan politics out of the judiciary.

“America and California can and will survive bad judges,” Bradley said in a long statement tinged with mild criticism of the Bird court. “Ultimately we will not survive as a free society if we are willing to subjugate our courts to the will of partisan politicians, particularly politicians motivated by public opinion polls, not constitutional principle.”

Reviewed Court Cases

During a month of intense political pressure to speak out on the controversial chief justice, the mayor said he reviewed court cases, particularly the written opinions of Bird. She has voted to overturn all 55 of the death sentences that have come before her during her eight years on the court.

“I disagree with some of those decisions, especially death penalty rulings,” said Bradley.

“Along with other Californians, I am sometimes deeply troubled when courts overturn death penalty sentences which, to me, seem proper and warranted.”

But Bradley cited 20 pages of historical precedent, from Hitler’s Nazi Germany to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, to support his decision to stay out of the election of Bird and five other members of the seven-justice state Supreme Court.

‘Wrong, Very Wrong’

“It is wrong, very wrong, for a politician in a partisan campaign to participate in efforts to remove a Supreme Court justice. Inevitably, such efforts intimidate judges and undermine the American principle--established more than 200 years ago--that courts are a separate branch of government and must act independently of politicians and political moods.”

Bradley’s expected general election opponent, Republican incumbent Gov. George Deukmejian, is a vigorous Bird opponent and has said Bradley’s position is a good sign of what kind of justices the mayor would appoint if elected. To that, Bradley repeated again he would screen all justices to make sure they will uphold the death penalty.

Larry Thomas, Deukmejian’s campaign director, characterized Bradley’s statement as a “gutless act of political cowardice that once again raises fundamental questions about the mayor’s ability to make tough decisions and to provide leadership.

“At its core, his decision makes a mockery of his recent statements embracing the death penalty. It is fundamentally inconsistent to be in favor of the death penalty and to refuse to repudiate those on the court who have consistently blocked its implementation.”

Criticized Governor

Bradley, in strong language, accused the governor of playing politics with human lives in thiswhole court election. Bradley noted that Deukmejian is withholding an endorsement of two other justices up for reelection, Joseph R. Grodin and Cruz Reynoso. Deukmejian has said he wants to review their votes on upcoming death penalty appeals.

“Justices should never be asked to offer up a human life as a way of purchasing a governor’s support,” said Bradley. “No governor should ask this. Deukmejian has, in effect, told the justices that they must vote to execute even if the facts indicate otherwise.”

In 1978, Bradley supported the retention of Bird and other justices who were seeking reelection. The difference this time, Bradley explained, is that he is a partisan candidate for election, which he was not in 1978.

The chief justice, for her part, has repeatedly asked office holders and candidates to refrain from endorsing her or offering her support on grounds this would tend to color the judiciary with overt politics.