Over-the-top ballot descriptions banned for judicial candidates

Deputy district attorneys running for judge will no longer be able to use language such as “hardcore gang prosecutor,” “major narcotics prosecutor,” or “child molestation prosecutor” on judicial ballots, according to a law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last week.

The bill’s author, Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, described it as an effort to tone down “increasingly hyperbolic” language that played on voters’ fears. He also noted that such descriptions could be inaccurate: a prosecutor could use such descriptions even if he or she had only one such case in the previous year.

The new law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2018, requires publicly employed attorneys to use their official job title or one of four straightforward ballot designations. Other candidates who practice law must use “attorney,” “attorney at law,” “lawyer,” or “counselor at law.”

Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, was the only legislator to speak against the bill when it was debated, arguing it raised equal protection concerns because it more strictly regulated the ballot language of public sector attorneys than private sector ones.

In a news release issued Friday, Allen noted that in 41 races for a Los Angeles Superior Court judgeship from 2006 to 2016, 40 candidates used the more extreme descriptors. The win rate for those candidates was 86 percent, he noted, including an election that unseated a sitting judge.

“By limiting ballot designations among candidates for judicial office, SB 235 more stringently requires candidates to adhere to the higher ethical standard of the judicial branch they wish to join,” Allen said in the release.

The bill had wide support. It passed the Assembly 69-7 and the Senate 34-4. The Conference of California Bar Associations and the California Judges Association supported it,

Brown also signed an unrelated bill into law last week that could make it more difficult for private attorneys and their clients to bring Proposition 65 enforcement actions against businesses.

Another bill, authored by Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, makes discoverable the “certificate of merit” that a plaintiff’s attorney must file with a violation notice. Previously, the basis behind the certificate, in which the attorney certifies he or she has consulted with an expert to conclude the plaintiff’s allegations have merit, was not discoverable.

Second, the new law requires the attorney general’s office, which reviews every certificate of merit, to send a letter to the plaintiff’s attorney and the prospective business defendant if it finds no basis for a case. Before, a plaintiff could proceed after 60 days if the attorney general took no action.

The bill was supported by the National Federation of Independent Business and many other businesses.

“Unfortunately, laws such as Prop. 65 which were originally crafted to protect everyday Californians have instead become lucrative payday opportunities for trial lawyers looking to make an easy buck on the backs of small businesses who have caused zero harm to their employees or customers,” Tom Scott, California state executive director of the organization, wrote after the bill passed both houses unanimously.