Most of the decisions most Los Angeles County voters are asked to make on their March 5 ballots have to do with Superior Court judges. But they have less information available about judicial candidates than about any other race.
That's not an accident. A variety of laws, rules, practices and customs limit what judicial candidates can tell voters about who they are and what they would do if elected. It is reasonable that a voter would want to know which candidates are Republican or Democrat, for example, or which ones will be tougher on thieves, or which court or department they might serve on if elected.
Most of these questions are difficult, if not impossible, to answer. That makes voting for judges more mysterious and frustrating than for any other official.
To help voters make smart decisions with little information, the Times editorial board answers some frequently asked questions about judicial elections and how we decide which candidates to support.
Why do we vote for Superior Court judges?
The vast majority of Los Angeles Superior Court judges are appointed by the governor and are never recused. Voters are asked to intervene every two years for a variety of reasons, such as when judicial positions are opened or incumbents declare their intention to resign in the few months before an election, or when a challenger attempts to unseat a sitting judge. In any election, voters decide how to fill less than 10% of judicial positions. This year, it is slightly less than 6%.
Why are there so many judicial races on the March 5 ballot?
Be thankful there aren't more: 169 injunctions end this year. But most seats have sitting judges running for re-election unopposed, so they will not appear on the ballot and will automatically win new six-year terms. There are two races in which candidates challenge sitting judges and eight vacancies.
The county recorder numbers judicial positions before it is clear which ones will appear on the ballot. That's why voters see seemingly random office numbers like 12, 39, and 43 on their ballots.
A candidate who receives more than 50% of the vote in March wins office outright. If no candidate receives a majority of votes, the top two vote-getters will face each other in November.
Why is there only one candidate for position no. 93, while up to four candidates are running for other judicial positions?
It's part campaign strategy and part luck of the draw.
Candidates can declare their intention to run for multiple seats early in the process, while they check who else is running and decide who they want to compete against. Colleagues in the district attorney's office, for example, may try to avoid competing with each other. Or perhaps they want to avoid challenging candidates they believe are particularly strong.
History suggests that voters like to elect criminal prosecutors to office, and current campaign tradition holds that candidates with Latino surnames do well in Los Angeles County. Perhaps that is why many candidates decided to give Víctor Ávila, a prosecutor with a Latin surname, a wide margin in this race. Or it could just be a coincidence.
Ávila actually has an opponent. She won't see Deputy Public Defender Natasha Khamashta's name on the ballot, but she qualified to run as a write-in candidate. Under the rules for write-in campaigns, her name written on the ballot counts as a vote even if it is misspelled, as long as the voter's intent is clear.
Descriptions of judicial candidates who are prosecutors simply say “deputy district attorney, Los Angeles County.” Why aren't his assignments, such as “sex crimes prosecutor” listed?
They used to be, but electoral appointments, as they are known, were restricted by legislation in 2017. Judicial candidates were believed to be playing too fast and loose with their appointments, and that voters were misled rather than informed by the three words (plus the name of the jurisdiction) descriptions.
You can often find out more about their work on their websites or other campaign materials.
These rules do not apply to candidates for other offices. Those running for district attorney can still call themselves “sex crimes prosecutor” on the ballot. It is a good example of the tension between the competing goals of providing voters with the information they need to elect judges and controlling the quality of that information to uphold the dignity of the judicial office.
Why don't judicial candidates say how tough they will be on thieves?
The Canons of Judicial Ethics (a code of conduct adopted by the state Supreme Court, pursuant to the state Constitution and subject to enforcement) prohibit candidates from saying how they would rule in cases they have not heard. Judges should approach cases with an open mind and listen to the facts and arguments from each side before making decisions.
Some judicial candidates this year, and in previous elections, have said they would impose alternative sentences that do not result in verdicts or criminal records. Experts consulted by the Times editorial board differ on whether such statements amount to inappropriate promises about how they would govern if elected.
But judicial candidates don't even know whether they might be assigned to hear criminal cases instead of, say, adoptions or guardianships. That decision is largely out of your hands.
How does the editorial board vet judicial candidates?
We observe them in the courtroom when possible and ask them many questions. We interview candidates, as well as people familiar with their work, such as attorneys, colleagues, judges, and courtroom staff.
We seek candidates who are well versed in the law and judicial procedure, treat others with respect, command self-respect, control their temper under difficult circumstances, and appear committed to impartial justice.
