(Cross-posted at Calitics. Although this deals with the upcoming California primary in particular, election of judicial candidates happens in other places. Perhaps you also know someone in California to inform)
Lost in all the presidential primary news is the fact that California has another important primary coming up on June 3rd. Many of us are boning up on Prop 98 and 99 and understanding the importance of our votes on those measures.
But most of us are woefully unprepared for decisions in other contests, especially those for the office of Superior Court judge. And with turnout expected to be light, we could wind up with some very scary judges if people don't pay attention and vote.
Normally judges are appointed by the governor, serve out their six-year terms and are then considered reelected if there are no challengers. But this year, ten seats in LA County are open because the incumbents retired and Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't have enough time to appoint successors, or otherwise decided to leave the decision to voters. Similar situations exist throughout California.
If you're like many people I know, you leave this part of the ballot blank and feel a bit guilty. Or worse, you pick one like some people pick a horse race, by a picture, the sound of their name (seriously) - or even by a coin toss. Lest you think that the vote doesn't matter, consider the role these people serve in our judicial system. As the Times notes, they can "dissolve a marriage, break up a family, impose the death penalty, appoint conservators and decide whether a drug user ought to go to prison or deserves a break".
And if you still think your vote doesn't matter, consider two very different candidates among the many running in Los Angeles County for these seats.
A Good One. Thomas Rubinson, running for Office 82, is endorsed by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, LA's daily for the courts and legal issues. The paper says he is "the only candidate for Superior Court Office No. 82 who possesses the qualifications for the post." It goes on to quote from a recent performance evaluation in his role as criminal prosecutor: "He is experienced, intelligent and well versed in criminal law and procedure. He has demonstrated good judgment in his handling and evaluation of cases. Mr. Rubinson is a reliable and dependable employee, often staying beyond regular working hours to ensure that the job gets done. He maintains a professional manner and demeanor at all times and possesses the highest of ethical standards."
A Scary One. On the other hand, Bill Johnson, running for Office 125, is the subject of a scathing LA Times editorial, which notes that "Los Angeles voters, if they don't pay attention, could hand judicial robes to a racial separatist who called for restricting U.S. citizenship to persons 'of the European race' and deporting blacks, Asians, Latinos and others who don't meet his racial criteria." Calling it a "stealth election" the Times explains that he's run for different offices under different names, and wrote a book supporting racial exclusion in the Constitution.
Would you have known this going into the polls? Absentee ballots are already going out. Make sure you're registered to vote. Get your absentee ballot. Know about your candidates (a good local resource in LA is the Metropolitan News-Enterprise). And vote on June 3rd!
Share your insights on judicial candidates in comments below.