California Supreme Court chief to retire

California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who presided over the often turbulent restructuring of state courts and wrote the ruling that temporarily gave gays the right to marry, said Wednesday he would step down in January after a 38-year career in the California court system.

George, 70, a moderate Republican who was often the swing vote on the state high court, said he wants to retire while he is “in the prime of physical and mental health.”

George’s decision stunned his colleagues at the court when he informed them Wednesday during a closed, sometimes tearful meeting. George has often said he had the only job he would want.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has until Sept. 16 to appoint a new chief justice, who would then face a retention vote on the November ballot. George said he had recommended that Schwarzenegger nominate a judge with administrative court experience.

“This will be one of the most important legacies that Gov. Schwarzenegger has to leave,” he said.

George, who has served as chief for 14 years, oversaw the blending of municipal and superior courts into a single trial court system and its transfer from county control to the state judicial branch.

On the bench, George has been an extremely influential jurist, leading the court from the center and frequently casting the vote that determined whether the conservative or the liberal wing prevailed. He tended to vote more often with the conservatives on law-and-order cases and with the liberals on social issues.

His judicial legacy is likely to be shaped most profoundly by his 4-3 ruling in May 2008 to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage as a violation of the state Constitution. Three justices favored overturning the ban, and three wanted to keep it in place. George’s vote decided the issue.

George said he made up his mind after studying legal precedent, talking with his law clerks and reflecting on the history of discrimination in the United States. The landmark ruling elevated the constitutional status of sexual orientation, but voters took away the rights of gays to marry later that year when they passed Proposition 8.

George then wrote the 6-1 ruling that upheld Proposition 8, rejecting an argument that same-sex marriage could not be abolished by a constitutional amendment. A federal court judge is now considering a federal challenge to the 2008 ballot measure.

As chief, George often appointed himself to write the rulings that would be the most controversial. One of his most contentious was a ruling that overturned a state law requiring minors to obtain consent from a parent or a judge to have an abortion. Anti-abortion forces tried unsuccessfully to defeat him at the ballot.

Other notable rulings: Loder vs. Glendale, which said city employees cannot be routinely subjected to drug testing for promotions; and Aguilar vs. Avis Rent-a-Car, which said that racial epithets can be banned in the workplace despite the 1st Amendment.

George’s administrative overhaul of the courts often provoked anger from judges on the trial courts, especially in Los Angeles, where the jurists were accustomed to great autonomy and generous benefits. His critics in Los Angeles dubbed him “King George.”

“There are things that I wish had gone smoother,” George reflected, “but in the end they turned out quite fine.”

In fact, he cited his administrative work as one of his biggest accomplishments because it made the courts “a coequal, independent branch of government” and improved services.

Legal analysts said Wednesday that George would rank with the late Chief Justice Phil Gibson as one of the court’s most successful administrators.

The transfer of courts from counties to the state has “just been a remarkable transformation, and it has gone remarkably smoothly because of his leadership,” said University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelmen, a longtime observer of the state high court.

He said George also improved relations between the Legislature and the judiciary and made the courts more accessible to the public and the news media.

But George fared less well in reforming capital punishment. Although George called the state’s system “dysfunctional,” he “has been powerless to do anything about it,” Uelmen said.

He tried to make death row defense work more appealing, but there remain large numbers of inmates without lawyers, and the appeals process continues to be sluggish.

In a relaxed meeting with reporters in his chambers, George cited jury reforms — such as one-day, one-trial service — greater juror pay and instructions “in plain English” as among his successes.

George said in the interview that his family prompted him to consider retirement when he turned 70 on March 11 by asking what more he hoped to accomplish during the next 12 years. He said he began to consider the quality of his life.

“Virtually all my daylight hours were consumed with my administrative and case-related chores, and my workload — and I am not complaining — literally tripled when I went from being an associate justice to chief,” he said. “It was getting difficult to get more than five minutes of pleasure reading before I went to bed.”

The time to file for retention started this week, and George said he did not want to run and then retire six to eight months after his election.

Like most others, Uelmen was surprised by George’s decision, but “looking ahead could not be a pretty picture,” the professor said. “He is not at a point of looking forward to being able to coast a little and enjoy the fruits of his labor. The job just gets harder every year. When you have to manage a system by cutting budgets, it gets old really fast.”

Times staff writer Lee Romney contributed to this report.

maura.dolan@latimes.com