The Deukmejian Court

Malcolm M. Lucas, the chief justice-designate of California, has been an accomplished state and federal judge for nearly 20 years, the last two of them as an associate justice of the state Supreme Court. In that time he has been the most conservative of the court’s seven members, so his elevation to chief justice is analogous to the recent elevation of William H. Rehnquist to be chief justice of the United States. In each case a conservative chief executive has used his appointment power in an effort to change the course of the judiciary, as is his right.

Gov. George Deukmejian has the opportunity to elevate Lucas because of the bonanza that the voters handed him last month when they ousted Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Associate Justices Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso. By shifting Lucas, 59, Deukmejian is able to put the chief justiceship in the hands of his own appointee and still have three more appointments to make. Seldom has a chief executive been in a position to effect such a major change in the judiciary in such a short time. If there was any doubt about it before, it should now be clear that the state’s highest tribunal will become the Deukmejian court after Jan. 5, when the ousted justices leave office.

But this is no surprise. This is what the people who voted against Bird, Grodin and Reynoso presumably wanted, and the governor is happily obliging them. Lucas is honest and able, and there is no visible reason to oppose him even though, judging by his past opinions, we do not share his views on many important matters.

Like Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court, Lucas has consistently sided with authority and law enforcement against individual rights. These jurists are committed to dispensing with what they regard as legal shenanigans and making sure that guilty people are punished. On both the state and federal levels, the years ahead may be difficult for all people who would strike the balance more on behalf of individuals than on behalf of society. In our view--which is in the minority at the moment--the virtually unlimited power of society demands constant oversight, and it is the job of the courts to provide that oversight and to keep the state in check.

For several decades now the California Supreme Court has been a very liberal bench. Twenty years ago it regularly blazed new paths in the law that other courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, came to follow. More recently its luster has been tarnished, though it continued its basically liberal jurisprudence. Now it will shift to the right, apparently in concert with the mood of the electorate. But it may be a while before it reclaims its preeminent position among the nation’s state courts.