Group Plans Challenge to Judicial Elections

Los Angeles County’s system of judicial elections is about to face a serious constitutional challenge from a coalition of civil rights groups and low-income voters who contend that current practices violate the equal protection and 1st Amendment rights of non-wealthy voters and judge candidates.

State and county officials “have established, sanctioned and maintained an exclusionary” system favoring affluent candidates in judicial elections in Los Angeles County, according to a suit provided to The Times that is scheduled to be filed in Los Angeles federal court Wednesday.

The suit asserts that the current system, in effect, presents a wealth barrier to meaningful voting rights for the non-wealthy. In particular, the suit cites the county’s requirement that judicial candidates pay to have a campaign statement in the voter information pamphlet, and the high cost of waging a successful campaign.

“Like the poll tax and high candidate filing fees of the past, this system denies non-wealthy voters and candidates their right to equal and meaningful participation in the election process,” said Abigail Turner, an attorney for the National Voting Rights Institute of Boston.

Turner and her co-counsel, John Bonifaz, said similar problems exist across the country as more than 40 states elect their judges. But they decided to file the challenge here for two principal reasons. The first is the size of Los Angeles County’s court system: it’s larger than that of 45 states and one third of the state’s Superior and Municipal Court judges serve in this county.

Additionally, there is extensive recent data showing that the cost of competing for a judgeship in Los Angeles County has skyrocketed since 1976. At that time, the average candidate spent $3,000. By 1992 that had risen to $70,000, according to a study issued in November by the nonprofit California Commission on Campaign Financing.

The study, titled “The Price of Justice,” revealed that in races for open judicial seats, winners outspent losers 4 to 1--$128,000 to $32,000. Additionally, the study shows that candidates are increasingly being forced to solicit money from lawyers and litigants who appear before them (lawyers and law firms provide the second-largest source of funds for these candidates) and to rely on family wealth as a source of campaign finance. Nearly half of all the money raised in Los Angeles County Superior Court races came from the candidates and their families.

Moreover, it currently costs more than $48,000 simply for a judicial candidate to get a statement advocating his or her candidacy in a county-circulated voter information pamphlet. “If you want to win the election, you better buy the ballot pamphlet statement,” Robert M. Stern, the commission’s co-director, said in an interview.

The commission recommended 10 reforms, the prime among them giving judicial candidates a right to publish a free statement in the county’s voter pamphlet. The commission also urged that contributions to judicial candidates be limited to $500 and loans to candidates be limited to $25,000. State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) introduced a bill proposing those reforms, but the measure was placed on interim study after one hearing.

Turner said that since judges were having to raise more and more money from attorneys, who potentially could appear before them, current practices pose a “direct threat to the integrity of Los Angeles County’s courts.”

Plaintiffs in the suit include the NAACP of Los Angeles, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, the MultiCultural Collaborative, the California Public Interest Research Group, 11 registered voters and attorney Charles L. Lindner, who was defeated in a March 1996 campaign for a Superior Court seat.

Geraldine Washington, president of the NAACP’s Los Angeles chapter, said the group’s interest in joining the suit is clear: “When only those with big money can become judges, our elections are not free and our system of justice is not fair.”

The plaintiffs seek an order from the federal court invalidating the current system--including the ballot statement charge--and compelling the creation of an alternative source of public financing in judicial campaigns.

The defendants include California Secretary of State Bill Jones, Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Conny B. McCormack and the five members of the Board of Supervisors.

McCormack said that the Board of Supervisors has been charging candidates for ballot statements for judgeships since 1965.

Presently, all but three of the state’s 58 counties--San Francisco, Santa Clara and Sutter--charge for ballot statements, so a favorable ruling in this case would have a statewide impact and potentially have national ramifications.

“I understand the concern that some individuals who can afford [to pay for the ballot statement] have an advantage,” McCormack said. However, she said that the county’s interest in charging candidates is clear: “The printing costs are astronomical, the statements go to 3.6 million voters.”

Halvor F. Melom, principal deputy county counsel, said he could not comment until he has seen the suit. A spokesman for Jones declined comment.

Nearly a decade ago, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Leon S. Kaplan challenged the county’s right to charge fees for a ballot statement. A federal judge in Los Angeles rejected Kaplan’s suit and the decision was upheld on appeal.