LOCAL ELECTIONS / SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES : No Opposition Means No Place on Ballot for 66 Incumbents

Sixty-six of Los Angeles County’s 238 Superior Court judges are up for election next week, but you’d never know it by looking at Tuesday’s ballot.

They’re not on it.

Because no one is challenging them, they will automatically win six-year terms without having to be voted upon, in accordance with a 1963 state law that appears to have been intended to help them avoid dirtying their robes with electoral politics.

In upholding the constitutionality of this law, the state Court of Appeal declared in 1965, “The Constitution does not require that there be an actual balloting and tabulation of votes” for incumbent judges who are unchallenged.

By contrast, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court justices are required to appear on ballots to win public confirmation of their 12-year terms, after their gubernatorial appointments. Although no one can run against them, the public gets a chance to vote for or against them, in what are known as retention elections.

The special electoral treatment of California’s judges reflects a philosophical splitting of the difference between arguments that they should be treated like other public officeholders and held strictly accountable for their actions at the polls, and arguments that they should be appointed, like federal judges, for life, in a system in which judicial independence is most prized.

Under California’s system, the governor appoints the vast majority of Municipal and Superior Court judges, but state law requires them to run for office at the next election.

This year’s Los Angeles Superior Court elections were effectively decided last March 9, when no one gathered the 20 signatures on a nominating petition or paid the $898 filing fee to be listed as a challenger.

It became clear 10 days later that no incumbents would even be listed on the ballot, when no one filed a petition with the 100 signatures necessary to mount a write-in campaign.

Actually, one incumbent judge, Lourdes Baird, was challenged in the June primary. But at the time, it was widely known in legal circles that she was likely to become the chief federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. Presumably because this was not widely known by the electorate, she defeated her challenger, then resigned from the court when her presidential appointment as U.S. attorney came through. Gov. George Deukmejian must appoint her successor.

In his nearly eight years in office, Deukmejian has appointed more than 750 of the 1,500 judges now sitting in California.

While there traditionally is very little interest in running for the office, “there certainly aren’t a lack of people interested in becoming judges,” said Terrance W. Flanigan, the governor’s appointments secretary. He said the governor has received 4,000 applications from lawyers seeking judgeships since 1982.

The electoral route is unpopular for several reasons.

* It is expensive, particularly in large counties. In Los Angeles County--which has more people than all but six states--just mailing ballot pamphlets with a brief statement about who you are and what you believe in costs about $60,000. “If you wanted to wage a campaign over and above that, it would probably cost you another $50,000 to $100,000,” said county presiding Superior Court Judge Richard P. Byrne.

Superior Court judges earn $94,344 a year.

If a judge is not independently wealthy, he will have to raise campaign funds--probably from lawyers who may appear before him in the future. This can create, at the least, an appearance of unfairness.

* It is seen as unseemly. If you mount a successful challenge, the incumbent’s colleagues are likely to snub you, said Frank Zolin, who, as Los Angeles County clerk-executive officer, is the longtime chief administrator for the Superior Courts.

If you lose, you may look foolish. And, in a small county, you may have to appear in court later before the judge you challenged.

* It is hard to beat an incumbent. Particularly in large areas, most people don’t know how to evaluate judicial contenders. The word “judge” in front of one of their names on a ballot may be the most significant piece of information voters have, said Joseph Cerrell, a political consultant popular with judicial candidates.

In Los Angeles County in 1980, four Superior Court incumbents were challenged. All the incumbents won. In 1982, four were challenged. Three won. The one who lost was literally on his deathbed. In 1984, only one incumbent was challenged. He won. In 1986, there were no challenges. And in 1988, there were three. Two of the incumbents won.

The big year for incumbent challenges was in 1978, midway through the tenure of liberal Democratic Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. Statewide, the number of challenges increased from six in 1970 to 28 that year, nine of which were in Los Angeles County, according to figures compiled by California State University professors Charles G. Bell and Charles M. Price.

The 1978 surge is widely attributed to dissatisfaction among some prosecutors with the judges Brown was appointing, who, they charged, were “soft on crime.” Despite the emotionally powerful charge, only one incumbent was unseated in Los Angeles.

Deukmejian’s appointees have tended to be strong law-and-order advocates. Figures compiled by California Lawyer magazine in mid-1988 showed that 55% were prosecutors and another 14% were other types of government attorneys. Only 40% had ever worked in the private sector.

As a conservative governor, one would expect electoral challenges to his judges to come from liberals. “There just aren’t that many liberal Democrats out there hungry to be judges,” said Cerrell. “I don’t know (why). Maybe they’re making too much money.”

There appears to be declining interest in becoming a judge among private attorneys, particularly in big cities where salaries for accomplished lawyers in major firms can easily exceed $500,000 a year, and even some third-year lawyers are paid as much as judges.

Judgeships may have become less attractive for other reasons.

The workload is increasing faster than the number of judges. “Each individual judge is required to do more . . . and frankly, a lot of the fun and personal satisfaction of the job has diminished,” said Byrne.

While being a Superior Court judge might result in wide recognition and high status in Siskiyou County, where there is only one, said court administrator Zolin, it is considerably less of a big deal in Los Angeles, where there are 238.

Lack of job security is another factor.

Although challenges are few, being singled out for a challenge is a nightmarish prospect for judges. While some are chosen because particularly controversial decisions have attracted media attention, others are picked arbitrarily.

As an alternative to the appointment process and to avoid the difficulties of running against an incumbent, the system provides one other way to become a judge: Running for an open seat.

An open seat is created when a judge announces he will retire at the end of his term. This acts as a “release valve . . . for anybody who wants to run,” said Cerrell. It also allows incumbent judges politically at odds with the governor to avoid giving him the opportunity to name their replacements.

The only judicial races in Los Angeles County on Tuesday’s ballot are runoffs from two such such open contests in Municipal Courts--in Downey and Santa Monica--that were not decided in June because none of the candidates received a clear majority.

In the only other election for Superior Court in Los Angeles County this year, a Compton Municipal Court judge ran unopposed for an open Superior Court seat in the June primary. He won, but rather than wait for January when he would routinely take office after the general election, Superior Court officials asked the governor to appoint him to their understaffed court immediately. The governor complied.