Judicial Reform Measure Passes Key Committee

Legislation to dramatically reform California’s lax and secretive system of disciplining judges passed a key test Wednesday as the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved it without a dissenting vote.

Chaired by Assemblyman Philip Isenberg (D-Sacramento), the committee heard testimony Wednesday from people representing a broad range of interests. Witnesses included Santa Monica Superior Court Judge David Rothman, who urged the panel to delay taking action until a special state Judicial Council committee he heads completes a study on the issue this fall.

Rothman said overzealous reforms might interfere with judicial independence. Discipline of judges can be overdone, he said. “You have to be careful.”

But the committee rejected any delay.

“This is a matter of great importance. . . . It’s not going to wait for you,” said Assemblyman Louis Caldera (D-Los Angeles).

“The issues have been there a long time,” said Assemblywoman Marguerite Archie-Hudson (D-Los Angeles). “The people don’t have faith in the will of the judiciary” to act on its own, she added.

“This bill is going to move along with strong bipartisan support,” said Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith of Poway, one of three Republicans who joined four Democrats in voting the bill out of committee, 7 to 0. Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood), who faces a November runoff election for a Superior Court judgeship, abstained. Five committee members were absent.

The measure, introduced by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), would require more openness in hearings held by the Commission on Judicial Performance and end the judges’ domination of the commission by adding more citizens as members.

California’s system of disciplining judges, once considered trailblazing, has become archaic, Brown said.

“The Speaker’s bill would carry out needed reforms to bring California up to the standards of 29 other states,” said Peter Keane, chief deputy public defender of San Francisco, who wrote the legislation for Brown. “California’s system is characterized by secret proceedings without scrutiny. There is no accountability.”

He was joined in support by Gregory Totten, executive director of the California District Attorneys Assn., and Deputy Atty. Gen. Raymond L. Brosterhous II, representing state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren. Both are conservatives who rarely agree with Keane on anything.

“This bill has no ideological content. That’s one of the beauties of it,” Keane said.

The attorney general’s office has taken a particular interest in the legislation because its lawyers act as prosecutors in presenting cases against judges accused of misconduct. Last week, Brosterhous, on Lungren’s behalf, sent a stinging letter of support to the committee.

*

The letter said the attorney general’s office was having to spend considerable time in “secret litigation concerning whether or not secrecy will apply” at a formal commission hearing on allegations of misconduct by a judge. In fact, Brosterhous said, there has not been one open hearing on judicial misconduct since 1988, even though voters passed a measure that year designed to ensure greater public access to these hearings.

Victoria B. Henley, director of the commission, said it does not oppose change but expressed reservations about whether Brown’s proposal would give the agency too much power.

San Diego Municipal Judge E. Mac Amos, president of the California Judges Assn., tried to walk a fine line, saying the judges favored changes in the commission’s structure and confidentiality rules but had reservations about the specifics of Brown’s measure.

So far, only one state judge, Terry B. O’Rourke of the San Diego Superior Court, has publicly endorsed the proposed reforms. O’Rourke, a former law partner of Gov. Pete Wilson who is considered something of a maverick, sent a letter of support to state Sen. Alfred E. Alquist (D-San Jose), who is sponsoring a measure similar to Brown’s in the upper house.

In particular, he endorsed Alquist’s plan to divest the California Judges Assn. of the power to adopt a code of judicial conduct for the California judiciary. The association “is not a governmental body; it is a private interest group,” O’Rourke wrote.

The Alquist bill is scheduled for hearing next week. Passage of the bills would require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, and then a majority vote in a general election because the measures would amend the California Constitution.