Litigation

CA Lawyer: No Place for Partisanship in Judicial Election

By Peter Hardin

In many tributes, retiring Justice John Paul Steven’s appointment by Republican President Gerald Ford has been noted, as well as Justice Stevens’ leftward movement over the years. Now a veteran California lawyer asks whether an upcoming local judicial primary will be so partisan as to preclude election of someone like Justice Stevens to the bench.

Lawyer Dick Spotswood highlights in a Marin Independent Journal commentary a contest where a liberal challenger contends the progressive region should not be served on the bench by an appointee of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. Yet the incumbent is “hardly a committed Republican” and abandoned the GOP to become an independent, Spotswood writes.

The author points to the example of Justice Stevens’ career as “a reminder why partisan tests are wrong and often counterproductive,” and he also notes the rightward shift of Justice Byron White, an appointee of Democratic President John F. Kennedy. But politicizing the judiciary can preclude similar judges at the local level:

“Any partisan test would automatically eliminate local versions of John Paul Stevens…Partisanship has no role to play in any judicial election.”

Spotswood concludes:

“The ultimate issues for voters to ponder are the candidates’ competency and judicial temperament, talents over which neither Democrats nor Republicans enjoy a monopoly. The best approach is to retain incumbent judges who possess both qualities. If they lack either virtue, it’s time for a change.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 26, 2010 (boomark / email).