BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 362
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 29, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 362 (Bonnie Lowenthal) - As Amended: March 14, 2011
SUBJECT : Elections: office of superior court judge: write-in
candidate.
SUMMARY : Requires a write-in candidate for the office of
superior court judge to include a declaration on the statement
of write-in candidacy that he or she satisfies the eligibility
requirements for a judge and revises the number of signatures
required on a petition for a write-in campaign for this office.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a write-in candidate for the office of superior court
judge to include a declaration on the statement of write-in
candidacy that he or she satisfies the eligibility
requirements for a judge.
2)Requires that a petition indicating that a write-in campaign
will be conducted for the office of superior court judge be
signed by one tenth of one percent of the registered voters
qualified to vote with respect to the office, except that the
petition must have no fewer than 100 and does not need more
than 600 signatures.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits a person from becoming a judge of a court of record
unless for 10 years immediately preceding selection, the
person has been a member of the State Bar or served as a judge
of a court of record in the State of California.
2)Provides that in any county in which only the incumbent has
filed nomination papers for the office of superior court
judge, his or her name shall not appear on the ballot unless
there is filed with the elections official, within 10 days
after the final date for filing nomination papers for the
office, a petition indicating that a write-in campaign will be
conducted for the office and signed by 100 registered voters
qualified to vote with respect to the office.
3)Requires every person who desires to be a write-in candidate
AB 362
Page 2
and have his or her name as written on the ballot of an
election counted for a particular office to file a statement
of write-in candidacy that contains the following information:
a) Candidate's name;
b) Residence address;
c) A declaration stating that he or she is a write-in
candidate;
d) The title of the office for which he or she is running;
e) The party nomination which he or she seeks, if running
in a primary election; and,
f) The date of the election.
FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 362 is designed to make two narrow changes to the law
relating to write-in candidacies for superior court judge.
First, Section 8600 is proposed for amendment to require
write-in candidates for judge to indicate that they meet
the constitutional requirements for take the bench. The
requirements are established in Section 15 of Article VI of
the California Constitution, and require that persons must
either have 10 years of membership in the State Bar
immediately preceding selection, or have served as a judge
of a court of record in California. Nothing in present law
requires write-in candidates to indicate that they meet
these requirements, and it would be unfortunate to elect a
write-in candidate who is not eligible to serve.
Second, Elections Code Section 8203 is proposed for
amendment to base the number of signatures for the write-in
petition on the size of the county. The sponsor believes
that it is inappropriate to require the same number of
signatures in Alpine County (2009 population 1041) as Los
Angeles County (2009 population 9.848 million).
AB 362
Page 3
The low signature requirement has led to harassment of
judges based upon race and ethnicity. During the 2008 June
primary, a known white supremacist used this procedure to
focus on six incumbent judges in Los Angeles with Spanish
surnames. The person spearheading this effort published a
book in 1989 calling for disenfranchisement and deportation
of non-whites, and was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan in a
1989 special election race for Congress in Wyoming. The
protagonist and his colleagues acknowledged that the judges
were selected because of their names.
The six Latino judges were shocked when they learned that
they were targeted, but under the law they did not know
whether they would actually have write-in campaigns run
against them, or by whom. They were left uncertain as to
whether they needed to raise campaign money, hire
consultants, and carry out a campaign.
While changing the signature requirement will not insure
that such harassment is not repeated, a reasonable
signature requirement will help insure a seriousness of
purpose in each county, based upon size, and help avoid
situations where signatures are submitted merely to force
judge's names onto ballots.
2)Not on the Ballot : Unlike candidates for State Legislature,
incumbent superior court judges do not appear on the ballot if
nobody files to run against them unless a petition is filed
indicating that a write-in campaign will be conducted. In
fact, candidates for superior court judge typically do not
appear on the ballot, because it is fairly common for an
incumbent judge to be unopposed in a re-election bid.
As a result, write-in candidates for superior court judge must
organize a write-in candidacy much earlier than a write-in
candidate for other offices. While the deadline for
submitting a declaration of write-in candidacy for judge is
the same as the deadline for submitting a write-in candidacy
for any other office (14 days before the election), a
candidate who plans to run as a write-in candidate for judge
against an unopposed incumbent will have to file a petition
weeks earlier to ensure that the judge's name is on the
ballot, and that a write-in candidacy is an option.
AB 362
Page 4
3)Previous Legislation : AB 1335 (Lieu) of 2010, would have
changed the number of signatures needed on a petition
indicating that a write-in campaign would be conducted for the
office of superior court judge from 100 signatures to a number
of signatures equal to one tenth of one percent of the
registered voters qualified to vote with respect to the
office, except that the petition would have required at least
100 signatures and would not have exceeded 1,000 signatures.
Additionally, AB 1335 would have required a write-in candidate
for the office of superior court judge to include a statement
that he or she satisfied the eligibility requirements for a
judge on his or her declaration of candidacy. AB 1335 was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 30, 2010, who
expressed concern that the increased number of signatures
required to conduct a write-in campaign against an incumbent
judge could deter an individual from challenging an incumbent
for the office of superior court judge.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Judges Association (Sponsor)
Judicial Council of California
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Lori Barber / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094