More Than Mud-Free Courts

As banal as many of this season’s campaign ads were in California, it could have been far worse. Voters in 15 states on Nov. 2 elected Supreme Court judges, something Californians are spared because here these jurists are appointed by the governor. Judicial candidates in the 15 states collectively spent a record $19 million, much of it on attack ads.

Here’s some of what Californians missed: In West Virginia, the sitting chief justice lost to a challenger who spent $3 million. In one of his radio spots, a speech by the chief justice, a Democrat, was engineered into a Howard Dean-like scream. Two men vying for the Illinois high court together spent $8 million trying to paint each other as coddling child molesters or trial lawyers. These and other candidates trumpeted endorsements from the National Rifle Assn., unions, antiabortion groups and business organizations, endorsements that imply promises about how they will rule.

California’s system of choosing judges is far better -- but it could be better still. The state Constitution requires the governor to appoint all Supreme Court and courts of appeal justices. Because governors have mostly chosen well, these justices are considered to be among the nation’s best. Every 12 years, voters must approve these jurists for another term, but they appear on the ballot unopposed. The governor also appoints nearly all Superior Court judges; they must periodically stand for reelection.

The problem comes when lawyers challenge a sitting Superior Court judge, or battle each other for the few open seats created when judges retire. State ethics rules that have historically restrained judicial candidates from the mud fights typical in other states also leave voters with little information. Some told reporters they based their decisions on whether they liked a candidate’s last name.

What would help? The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. rates the qualifications of all Superior Court candidates, and the League of Women Voters posted information about each one on its website. Responsible voters will do some research before balloting.

The argument for public financing is especially strong for judicial candidates. Lawyers are usually the biggest contributors to these low-visibility races, but their donations create instant conflicts of interest for judges.

The county would do voters a huge service by offering Superior Court candidates free ballot statements listing their qualifications. The state provides free space to Supreme Court and courts of appeal justices up for retention and to initiative proponents and opponents. But only those county court candidates with big war chests can afford the cost -- up to $60,000 -- to buy space.

Democracy requires judges to be unbiased and impartial, ruling only on the facts and law rather than on who gives them the biggest contributions. California’s courts are far better than those in many states largely because politics play only a small role. Still, there’s room for improvement.