Voting for a break

AS USUAL, THE MOST RESOUNDING vote on Tuesday came from those who didn’t bother: About three-fourths of registered voters sat this one out. Many of them undoubtedly were Republicans, members of smaller parties or members of no party at all who saw little at stake in a primary dominated by Democrats battling each other for the gubernatorial nomination. But many probably were Democrats who found nothing positive in the contest between Phil Angelides and Steve Westly, or in the races for other offices.

Sifting through the results, we’re not sure what to make of them beyond extolling the wisdom of those voters who agreed with us and lamenting the foolhardiness of those who didn’t. We can hope that the defeat of Proposition 82, the preschool tax initiative, heralds the end of California’s flirtation with ballot-box budgeting. We have to acknowledge, though -- especially given the defeat of Proposition 81, the library bond measure, as well as the defeat of all eight ballot measures in the last election -- that when voters reject an initiative or bond, it’s not necessarily about the particular measure so much as a rejection of politics and politicians in general.

One result that was especially lamentable was the defeat of Dzintra Janavs, a judge with 20 years of experience, at the hands of Lynn Diane Olson, an attorney who left law practice years ago to run Manhattan Bread & Bagel in Manhattan Beach. Olson got her name on slate mailers and won endorsements from some prominent Democrats. But there was no campaign against Janavs, no bill of complaints. Did voters in effect fire her from the Los Angeles Superior Court because they couldn’t make head or tails of her name? (For the record, it’s Latvian.) Did they simply feel more comfortable with a name like Olson? (This particular Olson, by the way, drew a rating of “not qualified” from the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.)

The ouster of Janavs is Exhibit A in the case against judicial elections. Most voters have no idea who the candidates are but mark their ballots anyway, often based on the brief descriptions (“criminal gang prosecutor”) under each candidate’s name. One way to address this problem would be for judicial candidates to become better known -- raising more money, seeking more endorsements, making more promises. Another way would be to make judicial offices nonpolitical by relieving voters of the chore.

Of course, that would also relieve voters of direct oversight over their courts. But, judging from Tuesday’s turnout, they may be pretty fatigued anyway.