Here are two possible reforms:
- Single-Member Districts for Judicial Elections
The judicial election process should be reformed to incorporate single-member districts within all counties, similar to systems successfully implemented in Illinois and Texas. This would require amending the law to establish district-based elections, with boundaries drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission or other similar entity to ensure fairness.
For example, assume there is a county with 250,000 residents and 10 judges, creating districts of 25,000 persons per district for election would make campaigns more manageable and ensure closer connections between judges and their communities. This would also substantially reduce the costs of elections, which is important.
Another hidden benefit of district elections for judges would be that judges elected for an area would be available for prompt probable-cause hearings. This is something that appears to be lost to the sands of time, but it used to be commonplace. If a person was arrested, they were not taken immediately to the jail as we so often see on television shows and in real life. The officers are supposed to charge the individual, but the matter had to be put before a judge sitting as a magistrate before it could a person could be put in jail.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been more eloquent on this topic, in the 1948 case, Johnson v. the United States. The court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s “protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate, instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” The reviewing judge should have a reasonable-sized district and those being able to vote for the judge would put the judge in the position of balancing between a person in his district and the officer, something that is not in place today and has likely led to an increase in incarceration rates.
- Modified Federal Model for Appointments
Adopting a modified federal model for appointments would be the easiest method to use. It would enhance transparency while preserving the traditional executive discretion in this process. The mechanics to this approach would simply require gubernatorial nominations with the state Senate providing advice and consent in their confirmation. Senate hearings over the nominees would create a public record of the selection process. Public hearings would allow both majority and minority party senators to question nominees in open hearings, while citizens could provide relevant information about candidates before confirmation.
A more open and democratic selection process would enhance both the legitimacy of the judiciary and its responsiveness to the communities it serves. These reforms would help provide for a fair and competent judiciary for the citizens of California. These changes would help ensure that California’s judiciary better serves its diverse population while maintaining the highest standards of judicial integrity.
