A Step Back in Judicial Balloting : Voters need more data on court candidates; an Assembly bill promises less

Will California’s voters make better ballot choices when they are presented with less information? That’s what the state Assembly has concluded. Last May, the Assembly passed a bill that would eliminate references on the ballot to the length of the term when justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal stand for retention.

The justices run unopposed and their regular term is 12 years. But when justices are appointed to fill seats of those who leave the bench by retirement, death or for other reasons, voters decide at the next regular election if the appointed justices should serve out the remainder of the term they are filling. This system provides both accountability and independence.

But if retention is to be more than a rubber stamp, voters should have at least minimal information about the candidates on the ballot. They do not have that information at present and if AB 1936 passes the State Senate they will have even less.

The origins of the bill introduced by Richard K. Rainey (R-Walnut Creek) lie in the results of the November 1994 election. All 48 appellate jurists were retained, but some barely received the required 50% of “yes” votes. Moreover, the level of approval reached an all-time low, with 25 of the 48 justices receiving less than 60%. A state Judicial Council study found that the approval margin was strongly related to the length of the term specified on the ballot. For the jurist, the shorter the better.

Before 1994, voters were merely asked whether a justice should be elected “for the term prescribed by law.” Rainey’s bill would restore the old ballot language. It would also identify the candidates as justices. The 1994 ballot simply listed their names.

The Judicial Council and the California Judges Assn., which support the bill, realize that voters need to know more to vote responsibly. But that goal appears to be secondary to removing term lengths from the ballot.

In our view, the Assembly addressed the wrong problem: First, provide voters with relevant information about these candidates, such as legal experience. Then, we suggest, the length of their term will not be the determining factor in their retention elections. We hope the Senate gets it right.