Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
(television ad: "Is justice for sale in Ohio? You decide...)
It's happened in Ohio, Texas,
South Dakota, Michigan, Illinois,
Alabama, Mississippi, Wisconsin,
and Washington state, to name a few;
multimillion dollar judicial election campaigns
paid for by special interests;
and barrages of attack ads
and unfair criticism of judges.
Even a bestselling novel was inspired
by judicial election corruption in West Virginia.
In the fall of 2007, Chief Justice Ronald George
told the (California) Judicial Council:
California needs to recognize the trend
and be ready for it – with a plan of action.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George: “The focus
is not on saving judges from defeat at the polls
but on preserving and enhancing
the administration of justice and the rule of law.”
So he formed the Commission for Impartial Courts,
with 88 distinguished experts from all over the state,
including judges and justices, court CEOs,
educators, former legislators, leaders of the bar,
media, civic and business groups.
Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin served as chair.
They concentrated on four areas:
Judicial Candidate Campaign Conduct,
Campaign Finance,
Public Information and Education,
and Judicial Selection and Retention.
The steering committee, task forces and working groups
labored for two years.
They met in person and teleconference,
meetings that included comments and suggestions
from members of the public, a high priority.
To further the transparency of the process,
the public website featured frequent updates
with the latest information and meeting notices.
Commission members also took every opportunity
to educate the public about the importance of an impartial judiciary.
This is a community forum on the campus of University of the Pacific
in Stockton, co-sponsored by the San Joaquin Court
Hon. Ming Chin, Ca Supreme Court Associate Justice:
“I don’t think it’s unfair to criticize judges.
It is important that the criticism remain within bounds.
I think that judges should engage that criticism, not avoid it.”
They engaged the mass media, too.
Justice Ron Robie and Tim Hodson here on Capital Public Radio, with 300,000 listeners each week.
Jeffrey Callison, KXJZ Capital Public Radio: “From KXJZ this is Insight,
I’m Jeffrey Callison. I’d like to talk a bit about activist judges.”
Hon. Ronald B. Robie, 3rd District Court of Appeal:
“I’ve known hundreds of judges in my career
and worked on various boards and commissions and things
and I really can’t believe people are right
when they say judges do things because of philosophical bent
or anything else.
They bend over backwards to be fair.”
The California Channel also spread the word.
They broadcast the public fact finding forum in Sacramento in July 2008 –
a highlight event of the 2-year long process.
Commissioners, guests and the media heard from
10 influential speakers, including 2 former governors,
and Ohio’s Chief Justice who described the huge amounts
of money spent in a recent judicial election.
Hon. Thomas J. Moyer, Chief Justice of Ohio: “The campaign
earned Ohio the moniker of the poster child
‘how not to select judges.’
We were not prepared for the campaign.
This is one reason I’m here today.
We had no idea that this was going to occur.”
Prof. Laurie L. Levenson, Loyola Law School: “The $64,000
question to ask is ‘Who is paying for all of this?’
And it is by and large not going to be the average
litigant who has to come to court.”
The day was a great success,
and commission members were grateful for the input.
Hon Judith McConnell, 4th District Court of Appeal: “I think
we learned a lot and I think we’ll go back to our task forces
and follow up on some of the recommendations.”
By September 2008, the commission was ready to deliver
to the Judicial Council an interim report with 50 tentative recommendations.
And they described the work still before them.
In February ‘09, the steering committee
and task force members all got together to share,
and to refine the fruits of their work.
Hon. Judith McConnell, 4th District Court of Appeal: “Our job
was to be aspirational and we wanted to set
strong objectives for the judicial council.”
Hon. Douglas P. Miller, 4th District Court of Appeal: “We didn’t
want to just talk about things judges and candidates
couldn’t do. We wanted to also look at what they could do.
The plenary was also an opportunity for questions and comments.
Hon. Karen Robinson, Orange Superior Court: “Let me tell
you getting 100 signatures is not that easy.”
A continuing theme in their analysis was public perception.
Hon. William A. MacLaughlin, Los Angeles Superior Court: “We can’t
ask the public to have confidence in our impartiality
if there’s anything about this picture they’re seeing that
doesn’t pass the smell test.”
They suggested that some things stay just the way they are,
like the current system of elections for judges and appellate justices.
Hon. Ronald B. Robie, 3rd District Court of Appeal: “If it’s not broke,
don’t fix it; and we don’t think it’s broken.”
More than a hundred recommendations went out for public comment
for a 110 day period.
413 comments were received from 119 individuals and organizations.
Commission members poured over them for 2 days and made adjustments.
In the end, the commission created a body of work
that strives to ensure judicial impartiality
and accountability for the benefit of all Californians.
I’m Leanne Kozak reporting for California Courts News.