Bar Does Well, Should Do Better

Electing judges in Los Angeles County is a process involving big stakes and little information. Many voters never enter a courtroom, except as potential jurors, yet their safety, their livelihoods and their communities depend on the caliber of the men and women who preside over those courtrooms. Because of this lack of familiarity with individual judges and the court system, voters need all the help they can get. Several changes are in order to raise the level of information.

The system works as well as it does in no small measure because of the energy and public service of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn., which has evaluated judicial candidates since 1976. Its members know the law and are willing to take any risk involved in rating a judge and later having to appear in that judge’s court.

After each election, the Bar’s judicial evaluation committee evaluates its procedures for the board of trustees. A committee to be named for the 1990 elections will review the report and recommend to the trustees any changes in the rules for 1990. This year’s evaluation will start Saturday.

As Bar association president Larry Feldman said recently, the committee “needs to be more definitive” in explaining why it rates any sitting judge less than well qualified for the bench. All the public learns now about those ratings is that a judge has been found “not qualified,” for example, because of a lack of judicial temperament or because of bias. What does “judicial temperament” mean? What kind of bias? A spokesman for the Bar association said that candidates are given more information, usually orally, about the ratings. That’s not much help to the voters, however.

Judges often must make controversial and unpopular rulings, and they are bound to make some enemies in the process. In the interests of preserving the stability of the bench, we think that incumbency should carry extra weight in the Bar’s rating process. No judge should be rated “not qualified” unless the panel has compelling evidence that the person should be removed from office.

The Bar uses an exhaustive process to reach its findings. Its evaluation committee needs candid assessments from its sources. Protecting anonymity, however, often means that candidates cannot face their accusers and must try to rebut vague charges. With careers and the integrity of bench officers often at stake, the committee must try to be more specific in its discussions with candidates as well as in information that it gives the public.

Virtually every serious judicial candidate this year complained about campaign costs. Some expense is inevitable, but not the $54,000 that Los Angeles County Superior Court judge candidates paid for countywide ballot statements. Because these statements may be the only information that voters read, the county or the state should foot the bill for printing statements for all judicial candidates, or should eliminate the statements.

Not having to pay for ballot statements would help reduce the campaign fund-raising that judges or potential judges must engage in among their friends, who often are lawyers. The lawyers may later appear in their courts, thus creating the appearance, if not the reality, of conflict of interest.

Whether ruling on traffic violations or multi-million-dollar lawsuits, judges sit at the core of the American system. The more thoughtful and thorough the information in the hands of the public, the more thoughtful and balanced will be the votes cast in important judicial elections.