Retain these California judges

Much of the American public distrusts the judicial system right now; partisan fidelity and a transparent lack of objectivity on the part of the United States Supreme Court has disillusioned many. As a consequence, judicial elections, once the epitome of down-ballot races, are being watched closely across the country.

Rightly so.

After the fall of Roe v. Wade, state Supreme Court justices in places like Indiana and Ohio suddenly have an outsized role in determining the legality of reproductive rights. The Orlando Sentinel has told its readers not to retain the majority of Florida’s justices on the ballot this November over concerns surrounding its ideological bent.

Thankfully, California doesn’t suffer the same problems as these other parts of the country in this regard. We’re still a democratic stronghold, and our judges for the Supreme and appeals courts are well vetted and monitored.

California judicial retention elections, like the ones on your November ballot for state Supreme Court and the California Court of Appeals, function differently than those of regular elections. Judges at this level of the law were originally appointed by the governor, not by voters. Every 12 years, however, voters get to have a say in whether a judge should be retained with a “yes” vote, or dismissed with a “no.” If voters decide not to retain a judge, the governor appoints a replacement.

Judges up for retention are ethically bound from discussing their case deliberations, raising money for campaigns and engaging in politics. It’s perhaps a bit strange then, given the lack of insight voters have into their thinking, that judges are asked to appear on the ballot. But it does provide an additional layer of scrutiny in case of any obvious malfeasance.

It’s rare for a judge not to be retained. The last time a judge didn’t win a retention election was in 1986, after a bitter campaign by conservatives who

California is still a democratic stronghold, and our judges for the Supreme and appeals

courts are well vetted and monitored.

sought more death penalty rulings. Decades have passed since a justice seeking a new term even faced an opposition campaign. Part of this is due to the caliber of judges who make the cut for these seats. California has an especially thorough vetting process. When someone is nominated, the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Committee requests that they put together a list of 50 people whom they have worked with professionally for background and character interviews.

And that’s just a starting point.

Hundreds of people are contacted, from lawyers to professors to judges, to comment on each nominees’ judicial temperament, ability to be objective, respect for their communities, health and legal experience. Anything bad a candidate has done during their legal career will no doubt be uncovered. A series of intensive interviews with candidates seeks to catch anything else.

Mary-Beth Moylan, a lawyer and the associate dean of the University of the Pacific, receives vetting requests from the JNE Committee regularly — and she believes in the system’s integrity.

“It’s a pretty intensive vetting process, which results in people being appointed who have a really good reputation in the legal community,” she told the Editorial Board. “I feel like it’s really unusual that you get a judge in that position, especially in the appellate and Supreme Court, who is not an upstanding member of the community.”

Of course, judges can still make grave mistakes after they have been appointed. But none of the judges that appear on Bay Area ballots this year have received any disciplinary decisions from the California Commission on Judicial Performance, an independent state agency tasked with investigating judicial misconduct.

In other words, each candidate up for retention has been deeply vetted and has not made risible errors in ethics or judgment on the bench. You might not agree with every decision they have made, but these justices are immensely qualified.

This makes our decisions around the 13 judges up for election on this year’s ballot a breeze. We believe all four California Supreme Court justices — Patricia Guerrero, Martin J. Jenkins, Goodwin Liu, Joshua Groban — and all nine California Court of Appeals’ First District justices — Therese M. Stewart, Alison M. Tucher, Ioana Petrou, Carin T. Fujisaki, Victor A. Rodriguez, Tracie L. Brown, Jeremy M. Goldman, Teri L. Jackson, Gordon B. Burns — should be retained to continue their work.

Voters can select “yes” on their ballots for each and feel safe in that decision.

This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: sfchronicle.com/letters

Chronicle illustration and Getty Images California state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals justices are carefully vetted and monitored. Voters can and should feel confident retaining all of them in this election cycle. That makes the decisions around the 13 judges up for election a breeze.