Yesterday, California held its state and local elections. Most of the media focus was on the primaries for the governor’s seat and the mayoral race in Los Angeles. But over the past few days, several friends have been asking me about which judicial candidates they should vote for. For those who don’t know, trial court judges in California are elected by the county residents and serve six-year terms.
Most of them thought that either I knew the candidates personally, had inside access to their background, or could give a recommendation solely based on my experience. While I know a few, I don’t know them well enough to make a recommendation. And I am just as clueless as they are on the rest.
Protégé™ In CourtLink® Explains The Whole Case Faster
Designed to reduce manual docket work by prioritizing what litigators need most: on-demand full docket summarization that explains the whole case to date, followed by on-demand document summaries for filing triage, and AI-powered natural language searching for faster search and retrieval.
I decided to research one judge candidate, whom I will call Candidate X, that I have never heard of before. I looked at their background information on places like ballotpedia.org. The information was basic but at least Candidate X didn’t have any Google gremlins.
I then went to a few lawyer message boards and asked for information about Candidate X and whether this person is qualified to be a judge. Some responded with praise but others sent me private messages with less than stellar information that seemed credible.
I did similar research on Candidate X’s opponent, whom I will call Candidate Y. The result was similar: no bad internet footprint, some colleagues publicly praised him while a few who didn’t think highly of Candidate Y sent me direct messages. I should also note that a friend’s recommendation of Candidate Y actually made me skeptical because this friend and I politely disagree on 95%b of the issues of the day. So not all endorsements are created equal.
So for anyone who asked about Candidates X and Y, I told them my findings, asked a few questions about what qualities they are looking for in a judge, and then gave them a recommendation based on their answers.
Keeping Law School Accessible When Federal Loans Fall Short
As federal borrowing caps tighten financing options for law students, one organization is stepping in to negotiate the terms they can't secure alone.
While doing the above research on Candidates X and Y didn’t take up too much of my time, I couldn’t do the same for other candidates. So for the rest, I suggested that they look up the candidate’s name on the internet, check bar association websites to see which they recommend. Afterward, they can vote based on their research results. If they are feeling lazy, they can go to the AI website of their choice, input the qualities important to them in a judge, and see who the AI endorses.
Almost everyone I talked to ended up saying that they would just leave the ballot blank since they do not have enough information to vote intelligently.
If some people are not voting for judicial candidates because of lack of information or because they cannot bring themselves to even do a basic internet research on the candidate, then it is safe to assume that most of those who do vote have done adequate research or received a recommendation from someone they trust. A few may vote based on other criteria such as similar racial or ethnic backgrounds. My research on Candidates X and Y took about an hour.
Perhaps a smaller voter turnout can be a good thing. If a judge were to be elected through a contentious election with high voter turnout, then the judge may feel that he or she has an implicit mandate to rule a certain way on divisive issues.
As mentioned earlier, most people I know never heard of the judicial candidates before. I don’t see any candidate campaigning on television or radio and most don’t have a large internet or social media presence. So it probably means that judicial candidates either do not have the money for a full-scale election campaign or it is not cost-effective to spend money that way.
Also, I think Americans in general are not used to voting for judges. Since federal courts tend to be in the news more often, people might mistakenly think state judges are also appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature. Also, some voters may not understand that a judge’s job is to apply the law impartially to resolve disputes, even if it means the outcome is not what they wanted to see. Judges are not supposed to be a super-legislature.
Fewer people vote in judicial elections for good reason: most voters lack sufficient information about the candidates. But this low turnout may actually be beneficial. It likely means that those who do vote are more informed or are relying on trusted recommendations. Could this help preserve judicial independence by shielding judges from the intense political pressures that come with high-turnout, highly partisan races? Judges should be impartial arbiters of the law, not politicians seeking to please the majority.
Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at [email protected]. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.