Court Rejects Claim That County Judicial Races Violate Rights of ‘Non-Wealthy’

A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Tuesday rejected the contention of civil rights groups that Los Angeles County’s judicial election system violates the equal protection and 1st Amendment rights of non-wealthy citizens.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the system did not violate the constitutional rights of voters or candidates even though it provides no public funding and requires a candidate who wants a statement in the voter information pamphlet to pay for inclusion of his or her piece.

The suit, filed in 1996 by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People in Los Angeles and other civil rights organizations, alleged that state and county officials “established, sanctioned and maintained an exclusionary” system favoring affluent candidates in judicial elections in the county.

The lawsuit asserted that the system, in effect, presents a wealth barrier to meaningful voting rights for the non-wealthy. In particular, the suit cited the county’s requirement that judicial candidates pay to have a campaign statement in the voter pamphlet--at a cost of $49,000 in the most recent election--and the high cost of waging a successful campaign.

The case against the so-called wealth primary is one of several filed around the country in recent years by the National Voting Rights Institute of Boston in an attempt to reduce the power of money in politics. Thus far, the institute has not won any of the cases.

The lawsuit also came in the wake of a 1996 study showing that the cost of running for a judgeship in Los Angeles has skyrocketed in recent years. In 1976, the average judicial candidate spent $3,000; by 1992 it had risen to $70,000.

The study by the nonprofit California Commission on Campaign Financing revealed that in races for open judicial seats, winners outspent losers 4 to 1--$128,000 to $32,000. The study also found that judicial candidates increasingly were soliciting money from lawyers and litigants who appear before them and were having to rely on family wealth as a source of campaign financing.

U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian dismissed the suit, causing the appeal that led to Tuesday’s decision upholding his ruling.

In an opinion written by Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, the 9th Circuit rejected both the equal protection and 1st Amendment claims by the plaintiffs.

The three-judge panel said that in analyzing an equal protection claim concerning an issue of wealth, all the governmental entity has to demonstrate is that there is a rational basis for its action. The court said that the county clearly had such a basis for charging candidates to defray the massive cost of printing the ballot pamphlets.

In rejecting the plaintiffs’ 1st Amendment claim, the court cited a 1990 9th Circuit decision that rejected a similar claim by a Los Angeles judge.

In Tuesday’s decision, the judges said that charging for the ballot statement--to recover printing costs--”does not affect a candidate’s ability to get his or her name on the ballot; nor does it affect the other means available to candidates to disseminate their views to the public.”

The plaintiffs relied heavily on a 1953 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Terry vs. Adams that held that the voting rights of African Americans had been illegally abridged by a system in which the Democratic Party in Texas nominated candidates based on decisions made by an all-white private association--the Jaybird Democratic Club.

But the 9th Circuit said that this case represented an entirely different situation: “Terry vindicated African American voters’ rights to cast votes in primary elections. The inability to influence other peoples’ votes through campaign contributions is not equivalent to the inability to cast one’s own vote.”

The judges added that the Terry case did not confer “a right on voters to have equal influence in the election process.”

In reaction, John Bonifaz, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said that the 9th Circuit had improperly analyzed the Terry decision. He said that the plaintiffs would ask for a rehearing by an 11-judge 9th Circuit panel and would cite the panel’s description of the Terry case as one reason another hearing is warranted.

“No one can deny that it is critical to raise large sums to be a viable candidate for a judgeship in Los Angeles,” Bonifaz said. “We’re saying that raising money is an integral part of the election process. If you don’t pass through the ‘wealth primary,’ you won’t be a viable candidate.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Thomas A. Blake, who defended the current system, said: “We’re pleased by the decision. We think that the court got it right.” Blake said that if the case had been decided the other way “it would have mandated public financing of an aspect of elections. If you gave everyone the right to a free ballot statement, the voter pamphlet might be as thick as the Los Angeles phone book.”