Judicial Election Information

* I am once again invoking my status as the chair of the Judicial Opportunity and Selection Committee of the National Assn. of Women Judges to respond to your July 16 editorial (“Gains for the Suffering Courts”).

One of NAWJ’s primary goals is to increase the number of qualified women on the bench, federal and state, at all levels. Inherent in that purpose is the retention of those who now serve. While we agree that periodic retention elections properly give the public the opportunity to evaluate the record of a sitting justice, that evaluation should be based on the justice’s qualifications and record of service, not the length of the term established by the Constitution.

Contrary to your expressed view that AB 1936 “would help in fairly evaluating [justices] seeking another term,” information as to the length of the term to be served adds nothing to information about a justice’s qualifications.

The terms are set by the California Constitution, not by the justice. Further, the terms for which particular justices are seeking retention may vary depending on the date of an appointment and the time remaining in that particular term. Thus, a bare ballot reference to a particular partial or full term (i.e., four, eight or 12 years) creates confusion in voters’ minds, not clarification. A justice’s retention election could become the hapless casualty of the system. The current full term of 12 years was set by the electorate in 1934. If the electorate wants to change that term, it should do so.

The voting public should learn more about justices standing for retention. It is fervently hoped that your newspaper will assume some responsibility for the needed education. At least 35 Supreme and Appellate Court justices will be on the November 1998 ballot.

JOAN DEMPSEY KLEIN

Presiding Justice

Court of Appeal, Los Angeles