Bill would force state court judges to write candidate statements

A bill proposed last week would require judges to file candidate statements for the Secretary of State's online voter guide. The up-to-250-word statements would apply to all superior court candidates as well as Supreme Court and appellate justices standing in retention elections.

AB 265 is authored by Assemblyman Steven Choi, R-Irvine. He said no interest group lobbied him for the change. Instead, the idea came from his own experience as a voter and inquiries from several constituents, some of whom said they opted not to vote in some judicial elections due to a lack of information.

"Many people don't know whom to vote for," Choi said. "What an uninformed way of selecting a judge."

Including the information only in the online guide, he added, is a "cost effective" solution that would avoid increasing printing expenses while giving people the option to find the information.

"My personal preference would be eliminating selecting judges through voting, but I may face a lot of resistance because this is a way of giving an opportunity to voters to participate," Choi added.

A spokesperson for the California Judges Association said the group was evaluating AB 265 and had not taken a position.

Neither has the state's Judicial Council.

"It's not Judicial Council-sponsored," said spokesman Cathal Conneely in an emailed statement. "The bill will be reviewed as a regular part of the process in the coming weeks as newly introduced bills are scheduled for legislative hearings."

Adding candidate statements was not one of the 71 recommendations made in 2009 by the Commission for Impartial Courts. That two-year effort, chaired by state Supreme Court Justice Ming W. Chin, urged greater civics education for students and changes to the rules around impartiality in the Code of Judicial Ethics.

But the commission's final report polled focus groups and found voters were "generally satisfied" with the available information in judicial elections.

Voters retained two state Supreme Court Justices last fall. The state voter guide entries for Carol A. Corrigan and Leondra R. Kruger listed only their education and past legal jobs.

Some LGBT groups made a late push to defeat Corrigan over a pair of votes in same-sex marriage cases a decade ago. In the final tally, Corrigan received 70 percent of the vote compared to 73 percent for Kruger.

Choi's idea comes up just after probably the most contentious year for judicial elections in California since three state Supreme Court Justices were denied retention in 1986 over their opposition to capital punishment.

Last year saw the first recall of a sitting judge in the state in 80 years, the defeat of another who had been censured by the Commission on Judicial Performance, and an extensive, ongoing Commission on Judicial Performance inquiry into a former judge who came in second in the attorney general's race.

There were also bitter partisan battles not only over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court but also over state high courts in New Mexico, North Carolina and West Virginia.

Then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 235 last year, a bill that limited job descriptions in judicial elections. In response to some judicial candidates placing titles like "child molester prosecutor" on their ballot designations, the new law limits candidates to actual job titles or simple descriptions like "attorney."