Malcolm Maclachlan reported in the Daily Journal about positive interim action on ACA 8, which would make less common — probably much less common — retention elections for California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices. The legislation was approved Wednesday by the first of two Assembly committees.
If approved by two-thirds votes in the Legislature, the bill would submit to the voters a proposed state constitutional amendment to authorize a statute providing “that the name of a judge of the Supreme Court or a court of appeal who files a declaration of candidacy shall not appear on the ballot, and instead the judge shall be deemed elected, unless a petition requesting that the judge’s name appear on the ballot is filed by a requisite number of registered voters qualified to vote for the office.”
There’s more about ACA 8 in the writeup we did about it the day after its February introduction.
The Daily Journal article mentions both opponents and supporters of the legislation. Personally, I’m a supporter. In fact, I would favor changing the Constitution to do away with Supreme Court and Court of Appeal elections altogether.
Related:
The specter of more frequent “100-year floods”
“Thirty Years After a Hundred Year Flood: Judicial Elections and the Administration of Justice”
