CALIFORNIA COMMENTARY : Change the Way We Elect Judges : Only the wealthy can afford to run and despite record spending, they remain largely unknown to voters.

Most Californians realize that trial court judges are elected, but few voters know anything about them as candidates or where their campaign financing comes from.

The California Commission on Campaign Financing recently studied the role of money in judicial campaigns statewide and found that spending has skyrocketed. The commission’s report also suggests reforms to reduce the importance of money in judicial elections and to increase voter information.

Candidate spending in Superior Court campaigns in Los Angeles County has escalated dramatically over the past 16 years, rising from an average of $3,000 per candidate in 1976 to more than $70,000 in 1992. Judicial candidates generally solicit campaign contributions from friends, colleagues and attorneys. When these are not enough, as in most cases, they must finance the balance of their campaign budgets themselves, contributing as much as $176,000 (in one case) to their own successful efforts.

The pattern is clear: To be a judge in Los Angeles, a candidate almost always must be wealthy.

Money wins judicial races. In the Los Angeles County Municipal Court races studied, winners outspent losers by almost 3 to 1. In Superior Court races, winners outspent losers by more than 2 to 1. In races where there was no incumbent, winners outspent losers in Superior and Municipal Court elections by 4 to 1.

Despite these increases in spending, judicial candidates in Los Angeles County nevertheless are stealth figures in local politics. Few voters know much about their beliefs or qualifications.

There are several reasons all of this should worry us. First, candidates and their families must heavily finance their campaigns. As a result, wealthier candidates dominate the field, shutting out attorneys of lesser means who aspire to the bench.

Second, as costs rise and more campaign money is needed, the influence of contributors is dramatically increased. Attorneys account for about half of all contributions to judicial candidates. This relationship can cast doubt on the impartiality of justice. One judge confessed that knowledge of the identity of a contributor is always “in the back of my mind.” Soliciting of major funding from lawyers inevitably undermines public confidence in a neutral judiciary.

Third, incumbents--as in all elections--enjoy a decisive advantage in fund-raising and winning. Incumbent judges work with many of the lawyers and litigants who are asked to make campaign contributions. Sitting judges are relatively well known in the legal community and many have nurtured working relationships with the bar. Some attorneys readily admit that they are unwilling to risk the wrath of a sitting judge by making a campaign contribution to a challenger.

Finally, in Los Angeles County in particular, judicial candidates almost never have sufficient budgets to inform voters adequately of the merits of their candidacies. The county charges an exorbitant fee for judicial candidates to publish a statement of qualifications in the voters’ pamphlet--the voters’ primary source of election information. In 1992, a short statement cost $65,000. Moreover, state law prohibits meaningful comparisons of judicial candidates in the pamphlet.

This situation need not continue. The commission’s report suggests reforms, which include: Impose a $500 contribution limit per person; let candidates publish statements in the voters’ pamphlet free of charge; ease current restrictions imposed by state law on free speech in the voters’ pamphlet; limit to $25,000 the amount of personal funds a candidate can loan to his own campaign; restrict the campaign fund-raising period to the year of the election.

As it now stands, wealthy candidates dominate most judicial campaigns; they are then elected to office by the uninformed. This situation cries out for reasonable and sensible reforms. If our goal is to preserve the independence and integrity of the judiciary, we can do no less.