Even Unopposed, Justices Face Opposition

Having no opponent sure seems the best way to enjoy an election day free of pressure. But here are some baffling numbers from Tuesday’s voters:

In one set of local races, 300,230 people took the time to push the lever declaring that they think David G. Sills should be thrown out of public office. And he had no opposition. Another 309,454 wanted to ax William W. Bedsworth, also unopposed. In a similar spot, Edward J. Wallin was rejected by 342,414 voters, and William F. Rylaarsdam topped them all, with 354,903 “no” votes.

These four, as most of you probably know, are justices for the 4th District Court of Appeal’s Santa Ana division. The voters handily confirmed all four by about a 3-to-1 ratio. Even so, if I were running unopposed, I’d expect to capture everybody’s vote except those whose glasses maybe steamed and they put the lever in the wrong spot.

As Bedsworth told the Legal Aid Society at a dinner this week: “It’s a humbling experience to know that when it’s a choice between you and nothing, there are 300,000 people who would prefer nothing.”

Actually, the justices’ percentages were pretty good, compared to previous years. Sills, the presiding justice, got 75% of the votes to confirm him, and the others were all in the 70s. That was the norm for appellate justices statewide.

Four years ago, the last time the justices were on the ballot, most were down in the ‘60s and even the ‘50s. Justice Sheila P. Sonenshine of the Santa Ana division squeaked by with just 54% of the vote in 1994. That’s close enough to make you stay up late to sweat the returns.

So close, in fact, that justices in the 2nd District this year raised money and sent out campaign mailers. Just in case “unopposed” wasn’t good enough.

But conditions were different in 1994. Voters then, for example, were told on the ballot that justices serve 12-year terms. Term limits were a hot issue that year, and a lot of voters couldn’t see guaranteeing someone on the bench a job into the next millennium. This year, the ballots did not mention the 12-year terms. (You can bet it was the judiciary that lobbied to get that changed.)

Also, there’s a better economy this year than four years ago, which means fewer people are feeling anti-incumbent.

“I ought to thank [Federal Reserve Board Chairman] Alan Greenspan more than Bill Clinton,” Sills quipped. “When the economy is going well, voters aren’t so quick to say no.”

So the justices are pleased, based on what they saw happen in 1994. Not me. I say it’s still wacky.

Consider: Almost 55,000 voters said they could somehow live with Sills, but couldn’t stomach Rylaarsdam. Geez, what did he do?

Well, it turns out there is a formula to this. If you are listed first on the ballot, as Sills was, or last, as Bedsworth was, you tend to get more votes, they’ve learned from experience. Rylaarsdam was in the middle. Also, he had his ballot designation as “W.F.” instead of “William F.” The uninformed voter considers that too formal, he’s since been told.

My contention is, these justices get a high number of rejection votes because too many people have no idea what their function is. Rylaarsdam agrees that’s a contributing factor.

“Sometimes we get confused with the [federal] 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,” he said. “That court has done some things to upset a lot of people.”

The U.S. 9th Circuit, for example, has done a lot of foot-dragging on death penalty cases. The 4th District doesn’t even get capital cases. Those go straight to the state Supreme Court.

Truth is, the state 4th District Court of Appeal rarely gets in the news unless it overturns a popular verdict. I can think of a couple of instances where the court took some heat for overturning murder convictions for drivers involved in fatal accidents. What I remember most about one is the late North Municipal Judge Dave Bach telling prosecutors that, as bad as this looks, it will never hold up as murder on appeal. He was right.

I can also remember a case where the 4th District overturned a rape conviction, which always leaves the public seething. Later, the police actually proved that the man was innocent and that others were guilty. It was Wallin who said at the time that if judges were only supposed to make popular decisions, you could just put machines on the bench.

Not that I agree with the 4th District all the time; I’ve said so in previous columns. But I wish some of those who voted against these justices could get a look at their caseload.

Last fiscal year, the six justices in the Santa Ana division (which basically covers Orange County) handled 950 cases. Because they sit in three-member panels, that means each one is reviewing some 475 cases. All of them wind up writing more than 100 opinions each year. Think about your boss asking you to write that many major papers annually.

In most instances, what they are doing is reviewing the work of judges from Orange County Superior Court, where all of them once sat. Bedsworth says what’s impressed him the most is how often those lower court judges have been right.

“It’s like in football, when you’re ready to bet money that the referee screwed up--until you see the instant replay and realize the ref was right,” Bedsworth said. “Here, I get 15 days to figure out whether a judge who had 15 minutes to decide an issue was correct. I’m just amazed at how often it turns out those judges’ decisions were right.”

Bedsworth’s sports example made me think maybe there is a reason that 300,000 people want to see him fired. His other love besides the law is hockey. Bedsworth is a goal judge for the National Hockey League, assigned to Mighty Ducks home games.

Who knows, maybe some voters blame Bedsworth for the Ducks’ lackluster season and decided to take a swipe at his colleagues too. It makes as much sense as anything else about that election.

Jerry Hicks’ column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Readers may reach Hicks by calling the Times Orange County Edition at (714) 966-7823 or by fax to (714) 966-7711, or e-mail to jerry.hicks@latimes.com