Judicial candidates are on the June 2 ballot — but despite their potential high-stakes roles, they are largely a mystery to most people.
Read more OC Board of Supervisor candidates discuss how they would handle homelessness
How should a voter choose a person whose decisions will have significant consequences?
“Generally, judges aren’t supposed to be super-public figures, so mostly they aren’t known outside people appearing before them in court,” said Austen L. Parrish, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law.
“Unlike other elected officials, the judge is not representing voters,” Parrish added. “The judge is meant to be protecting the rule of law.”
Strict ethics rules mean a judicial candidate, in most scenarios, can’t talk about how he or she would rule in a specific case or under particular circumstances.
But other key information — a candidate’s general philosophy, how legal organizations view them, the professional background — are often available for voters willing to dig.
“Doing a little bit of research is useful,” Parrish said.
Why are we voting for judges?
Governments have long been faced with a dilemma — how to choose judges whose allegiance is meant to be to the rule of law.
On the federal level, judges are appointed for life.
California deploys a hybrid system: Most state-court judges are initially appointed to the bench after a sitting judge chooses to leave in the middle of their term. Those judges are vetted by a state bar commission and appointed by the governor’s office. They still must face re-election, if they want to remain, but the vast majority run un-opposed and therefore don’t show up on ballots.
However, there are a handful of judicial races most election cycles, with an open seat drawing multiple candidates or someone decides to challenge a sitting judge.
Throughout his nearly 50-year career, Thomas Goethals — a former prosecutor, defense attorney, Orange County Superior Court judge and appellate court judge — recalled a constant: A series of calls before every election from his non-legal friends and family members confused about why they were being asked to vote for judges.
“It surprises them every two or four years,” Goethals said. “The same people call me up and ask me, ‘What the heck is going on?’ “
“The judicial canons — which every judge is bound by — limit what a judge can say or do when a judge is running for an initial election or re-election,” Goethals added. “Most judges I know take those canons very seriously, so it is a challenge.”
Where to get info
Most large bar associations — including those for Orange County and Los Angeles County — publicly rate candidates before elections, describing them as “exceptionally well qualified,” “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified.”
Those reviews are conducted by experienced, practicing attorneys who have first-hand knowledge of the candidate or have spoken to those who do.
Newsrooms — including Southern California News Group publications — traditionally put together voter’s guides, in which candidates are asked to weigh in on key questions or outline their philosophy or background.
Judicial candidates usually also provide candidate statements that go out with sample ballots, and often craft their own candidate websites to share their preferred message.
Voters can also look to endorsements — from law enforcement officials, attorneys or other judges — to see who is supporting a particular judicial candidate.
Read more Meta settles social media addiction case brought by rural Kentucky school district
And for those who happen to know a local judge or attorney, a quick call for some friendly advice is certainly an option.
And how should voters evaluate the information they collect?
Temperament — particularly the ability to remain fair and even-keeled — is a key consideration, Parrish said.
Looking at a candidate’s background can illustrate the breadth and type of experience and knowledge they bring to a judicial role, Parrish noted.
And voters should look for candidates able to deal fairly with those from a wide variety of backgrounds when those people come before them in court, the law school dean added.
“You are not looking for someone with a strong ideological approach,” Parrish said.
‘A delicate dance’
Goethals, the now-retired former superior court and appellate court judge, said he always felt awkward at being asked to endorse other judges for re-election and routinely turned those requests down. When seeking or accepting endorsements for parties that may appear before them in court — including law enforcement agencies and attorneys — a judge has to keep in mind that there is a very real possibility they will appear before them in court.
“You have to be sensitive and careful about those endorsements,” Goethals said. “You have to keep your bearings on what your job is going to be if you win. You may have to rule against them. It is a delicate dance.”
Judicial races are traditionally on the sedate side. But disputes do enter the public’s consciousness on occasion. And, in an era where threats to judges are on the rise nationwide and attack ads or comments on social media are widespread, judicial campaigns are far from immune.
“(There is) more of this rough-and-tumble politics we see more broadly seeping into judicial elections,” Parrish said.
Judicial challenges
A high-profile ruling can be enough for a judge to end up in the electoral crosshairs.
In 2018, then-Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky was recalled and removed from the bench by voters following public outrage over what many viewed as a lenient six-month jail sentence for former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman.
Goethals recalled his own experience facing the prospect of a challenge to his judicial seat when, as a superior court judge, a previous Orange County District Attorney’s Office administration — angered at his rulings in the midst of the Orange County “snitch scandal” — openly mused about running a challenger and enlisted a potential candidate.
“I decided I was going to run for re-election, and I wasn’t going to campaign much,” Goethals said. “I was just going to run on my record and let my record speak for itself. I wasn’t just going to roll over and let them steamroll me.”
As more information came to light about the misuse of jailhouse informants that had been central to Goethals rulings, the challenge to his seat rapidly lost momentum, and the prospective challenger opted not to run against him.
Sometimes voters don’t understand the full context of a judge’s decision, Goethals said, and judges are limited as to what they can say about the cases that come before them. There are times a judge realizes that, under the law, they are going to have to make a decision that they know isn’t going to be popular.
“Sometimes, you’ve got to make a tough call,” Goethals said. “No one said being a judge was going to be easy.”
Read more Fryer: Rosary, Servite track teams ready to soar at Masters Meet