Yeas for the Justices

Justices of the California Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are subject to periodic confirmation by a simple majority of voters. They appear unopposed on the ballot; voters are asked only whether the judge should be retained for another term of up to 12 years. We urge a yes vote on the four Supreme Court justices on the Nov. 3 ballot and the 15 Court of Appeals justices who sit in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties.

California’s constitutional retention requirement was never intended to be a referendum on a judge’s personality, the number of times he or she has upheld the death penalty or the politics of the governor who appointed them.

The requirement was designed instead as a way to remove a judge who had committed a crime or who simply couldn’t function on the appellate bench, someone who couldn’t or wouldn’t do the job.

California has long prized the independence of its judiciary--and for good reason. Our courts, like federal courts, are supposed to stand above politics so judges can, when necessary, check the power of elected officials. Judicial offices here are nonpartisan and judicial codes of conduct strictly limit the sort of campaigning that judicial candidates can do. In states with a more partisan tradition, judicial campaigns and even judges’ decisions often reflect political fashions and the whims of elected officeholders rather than a careful reading of the law.

California’s independent judiciary depends on responsible voters. In recent years, however, a growing number of voters have simply not voted at all in these retention elections or have voted no. Whether those who marked no misunderstood the retention requirement, concluded some particular justice was no longer qualified to serve or just felt in a contrary mood, the result has been the same: several distinguished and highly qualified judges have nearly lost their seats at the polls. Continued voter apathy or blanket negativism will leave other jurists vulnerable to attacks by single-issue extremists angry with a particular ruling.

Four Supreme Court justices and 15 local Court of Appeals justices appear on the November ballot. Each has more than met the criteria for retention. The men and women listed below are well qualified and have served California with distinction. They deserve a yes vote.

California Supreme Court Justices:

Chief Justice Ronald M. George

Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown

Associate Justice Ming William Chin

Associate Justice Stanley Mosk

Court of Appeals Justices:

Presiding Justice Vaino Spencer

Associate Justice Morio L. Fukuto

Associate Justice John Zebrowski

Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey

Presiding Justice Charles S. Vogel

Associate Justice Daniel A. Curry

Associate Justice Orville “Jack” Armstrong

Associate Justice Paul H. Coffee

Associate Justice Arthur Gilbert

Associate Justice Earl Johnson, Jr.

Associate Justice Richard C. Neal

Associate Justice David G. Sills

Associate Justice William W. Bedsworth

Associate Justice W.F.”Bill” Rylaarsdam

Associate Justice Edward J. Wallin