Ban on Party Endorsements for Judges Ruled Unconstitutional

California’s ban on political party endorsements for judges and other nonpartisan candidates is unconstitutional, a federal judge says.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick’s ruling, made public Monday, came in a lawsuit by the state Democratic Party. The party argued that the prohibition on endorsements, passed by the voters in 1986, violated freedom of speech.

In 1994, Orrick issued an injunction that allowed parties to endorse candidates for all nonpartisan offices except judge. That let the Democratic Party endorse then-Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin’s successful candidacy for state school superintendent.

By law, all local government offices in California, all judgeships and the state school superintendent’s office are nonpartisan, meaning that candidates appear on the ballot without party labels. Supporters of the ban on party endorsements argued that it preserved the nonpartisan nature of those offices and protected them from party politics.

Allowing party endorsements “can result in the selection of candidates by parties,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul Dobson told Orrick at a hearing last Thursday. He warned against the public “perception of a nonpartisan judge being influenced by the fact that he is the selected candidate of a political party.”

The California Judges Assn. and the state Judicial Council also supported the endorsement ban.

But Democrats said the law selectively silences political parties while allowing other, equally partisan groups to endorse nonpartisan candidates.

“Labor unions, insurance companies, anti-crime groups, any number of organizations can speak. It’s only political parties that cannot,” John Lewis, a lawyer for the Democrats, told Orrick.

The judge issued a brief order declaring the ban unconstitutional, and did not say when he would state his reasoning. Dobson said the state would consider an appeal.