COLUMN LEFT : Nation’s Judges Fear Spectre of Dread 5th Vote : If Roe v. Wade is overturned, courts will face tough abortion cases-and voter wrath.

The careers of Judge David H. Souter of New Hampshire and Chief Justice Leander Shaw Jr. of the Florida Supreme Court have much in common--both were rising judicial stars in their states, and both were appointed to their state’s highest courts in 1983. But while Souter will almost certainly become a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Shaw’s career is likely to come to a crashing end in a retention election contest in November.

The abortion issue has much to do with both scenarios, and will have even more to do with the future of every judge in America.

Souter sat as a lower court judge in New Hampshire from 1978 to 1983. During this time, the New Hampshire Legislature considered a law that would have required judges to approve abortions for minors if parental consent was unavailable. On behalf of his fellow judges, who were not eager to assume this task, Souter successfully urged defeat of the measure. And after his elevation to the state Supreme Court, he never once had to rule on the controversial issue of abortion rights. If he had, he certainly wouldn’t have been nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.

At least he would have had job security, as New Hampshire judgeships are permanent until a mandatory retirement age of 70. Florida, on the other hand, is one of 16 states that, like California, subject Supreme Court justices to retention elections. Many other states subject justices to contested elections. In Florida, justices face the voters every six years. Shaw, the first black to sit on Florida’s high court, was easily confirmed the first time and faced every prospect of an easy reconfirmation this November. The 59-year-old judge was even promoted to chief justice this year.

But unlike New Hampshire, the Florida Legislature did pass a statute requiring minors to obtain the consent of a parent or a judge before an abortion could be performed. The constitutionality of that law was challenged by a pregnant 15-year-old whose case came before the Florida Supreme Court after the U.S. Supreme Court decided last June to broaden allowable restrictions on abortion. The girl’s lawyers argued that her right to choice was preserved under the constitution of the state of Florida, which, like California, Alaska and Montana, has an explicit guarantee of the right of privacy. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the argument and Shaw wrote the majority opinion last October.

That ruling turned Shaw’s retention election into a referendum on abortion, with the anti-abortion forces calling for his scalp. Shaw is busily raising campaign funds, attempting to keep his seat. But the anti-abortion movement succeeded in electing a governor opposed to abortion and wields significant political clout in Florida.

If, as the anti-abortion forces fervently hope, Souter’s confirmation provides the fifth vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision that gives constitutional protection to a woman’s right to choose abortion, it will become increasingly difficult for judges to avoid deciding abortion cases. Since few states give judges the security of lifetime appointments, the Florida scenario has the potential for replay everywhere in America. Regardless of how judges decide abortion cases, there will be a deeply offended political constituency ready to be mobilized to unseat them. The prospect is an insidious threat to judicial independence: Will judges decide abortion cases by gauging the latest shifts in the winds that rage around this issue?

There’s another irony in the inevitability of the dilemma. For years, conservative critics of “judicial activism” have been chuckling up their sleeves, suggesting that the judges subjected to political attacks brought these attacks on themselves by sticking their judicial noses where they didn’t belong. But even judges who were put on the bench because of their commitment to “judicial restraint” will find no escape from the issues that abortion laws present.

Souter’s elevation warmed the hearts of every judge in America. The elevation to the pinnacle of an obscure jurist whose main qualifications are that he’s smart and works hard offers hope that it could happen to anyone. At the same time, the fate of Chief Justice Shaw will send a cold shiver down the spine of every judge in America. And judges with shivering spines are not what America needs in the 1990s.