Safeguard for the State Bench

In a rare display of determination and bipartisanship, the Legislature last month passed a bill to undo the great harm the Commission on Judicial Performance is poised to do to one respected jurist and, by extension, to the entire state bench. Now Pete Wilson should finish the job with his signature.

The bill before the governor would bar the panel from disciplining a judge solely on the basis of a single judicial decision or administrative act. That’s precisely what the commission seems intent on doing.

In July, it accused Court of Appeals Justice J. Anthony Kline of “willful misconduct” because of a dissent he wrote last December that refused to follow a state Supreme Court rule approving a controversial settlement procedure, since outlawed in federal courts. If the panel, following a formal investigation, decides the charges have merit, it could impose sanctions on Kline ranging from censure to removal from the bench.

Kline filed his response to the commission last week, denying that his dissent constituted willful misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice or violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The next step requires the state Supreme Court to appoint three special masters to prepare findings. Based on those findings, the commission can recommend disciplinary action to the state Supreme Court, which has the final say.

The commission’s move against Kline, an 18-year veteran of the bench, is unprecedented and reckless. The panel, composed entirely of appointed members, should focus on investigating judges alleged to have behaved illegally or unethically. It has no charter on behalf of the public as the arbiter of judicial decision-making. Nor can voters hold commission members accountable when they seek to play that role.

The bill now before Wilson would make explicit what ought to have been obvious to commission members. It should become law.