Props. 91 and 94 Focus on Courts, Judges

Two propositions on the state ballot ask voters to decide on some new rules for courts as well as for judges both on and off the job.

Proposition 91 would increase the authority of Justice courts--which operate in the smaller towns of 33 counties--to match that of Municipal courts, which operate in the cities. As it is, Municipal courts, but not Justice courts, may rule in such areas bas search warrants and extradition orders.

In addition, the proposal would require Justice Court judges to have a minimum of five years experience as lawyers--the same as Municipal judges--and would prohibit them from practicing law on the side.

Proposition 94 would allow judges to teach part-time at public universities--as they may now do at private universities--as long as class work does not interfere with their judicial duties. They would be prohibited from receiving retirement benefits for such public teaching assignments.

Employment Rules

Judges are now barred from accepting outside work for any public, tax-supported entity.

Supporters of both measures include P. Terry Anderlini, president of the State Bar and V. Gene McDonald, president of the California Judges Assn. The two also signed ballot arguments in favor of the measures.

“The only reason they’re on the ballot is because we’re amending the (state) Constitution,” Anderlini said. Proposition 91 unanimously passed the Legislature, and Proposition 94 received two negative votes when it was approved.

The official ballot arguments against both measures were written by San Jose lawyer Gary B. Wesley, who said in one case, “I write ballot arguments to make sure voters receive arguments on both sides.” He then urged everyone to be sure to vote.

The Justice Court measure is the outgrowth of years of increasing workload and such problems for law enforcement as having to travel long distances to obtain search warrants from other courts.

Proposition 94 represents a desire by judges to overturn a 1983 state attorney general’s opinion that reaffirmed the constitutional ban on judges working for other public agencies.