Saying that “[a]ttempts to remove an appointed judge from the bench, whether by voting ‘no’ in a retention election or by supporting a recall, should not be undertaken lightly,” the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board today recommends voting “yes” to retain Supreme Court Justices Groban and Evans at the November election. They are both seeking 12-year terms. The board also endorses all of the First and Sixth District Court of Appeal justices who are on the ballot.
The Chronicle is apparently not a fan of the retention-election system for appellate justices. “Voters . . . remain largely in the dark about how to assess whether a judge deserves to be retained, and the state provides no clear guidelines on how to make that decision,” the editorial says. Nonetheless, it continues, “this is one instance when hearing less about a candidate is probably a good sign.”
The board concludes, “California is lucky to have such a thoughtful and thorough system in place for appointing judges to its Supreme Court and district appeals courts [before any justices stand for election]. Given that there are no reported issues of problems with the 11 judges currently up for retention in the 1st District, the five judges in the 6th District and the two California Supreme Court justices, we recommend a ‘yes’ vote on all of them.”
Related:
Secretary of State info about Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices’ terms and elections is here
“California elections for top judicial posts: Big stakes, little info available to the public”
Under amended bill, Secretary of State, not justices, would prepare candidate statements
Legislation to limit Supreme Court elections won’t be re-introduced this year
The specter of more frequent “100-year floods”
“Thirty Years After a Hundred Year Flood: Judicial Elections and the Administration of Justice” (also here)
