BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1335 HEARING DATE:
6/15/10
AUTHOR: LIEU ANALYSIS BY:
Darren Chesin
AMENDED: 6/9/10
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Superior Court Judge: write-in candidates
DESCRIPTION
Existing law 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.
Existing law 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.
Existing law requires every person who desires to be a
write-in candidate 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:
Candidate's name.
Residence address.
A declaration stating that he or she is a write-in
candidate.
The title of the office for which he or she is running.
The party nomination which he or she seeks, if running in
a primary election.
The date of the election.
This bill would require write-in candidates for the office
of superior court judge to include on their statements of
write-in candidacy a statement that they satisfy the
eligibility requirements for a judge.
This bill would also require 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
not fewer than 100 and does not need more than 1,000
signatures.
This bill would also make technical changes that would be
implemented only if Proposition 14 was approved by the
voters on the June 8, 2009 Statewide Primary Election.
BACKGROUND
Not on the Ballot . Unlike candidates for the Legislature,
incumbent superior court judges do not appear on the ballot
if nobody files to run against them unless a petition is
filed within a specified time period 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.
COMMENTS
AB 1335 (LIEU) Page
2
1.According to the sponsor of the bill, the California
Judges Association, AB 1335 makes two narrow changes to
the Elections Code relating to write-in candidates for
judicial races. First, the bill amends Elections Code
Section 8600 to require that write-in candidates include
within their statements of candidacy that they meet the
state constitutional requirement to serve as judges.
Judicial positions are unique in that the law requires
judges to have been members of the Bar for 10 years
preceding their election or appointment to the bench, and
this change assures that write-in candidates are aware of
the requirement.
Second, AB 1335 would amend Elections Code Section 8203
relating to the number of signatures required to place a
judge's name on the ballot in anticipation of a write-in
challenge. Current law sets the number of required
signatures at 100; AB 1335 proposes a requirement equal
to 1% of the registered voters in the county, but not
less than 100 nor more than 1000. This change recognizes
the vast disparities in size between California's
smallest counties, where the 100 signature requirement is
AB 1335 (LIEU) Page
3
reasonable, and the largest counties, where current law
is far too low.
A modest increase in the number of signatures required in a
judicial write-in candidacy will limit the circumstances
where the ballot process is abused by persons with no
intention to mount a write-in campaign. This will
prevent needless lengthening of the ballot for no purpose
and limit voter confusion where the judge's name appears
on the ballot with no challenger's name appearing.
The California Judges Association fully supports the right
of qualified candidates to challenge sitting judges on
the ballot, but common-sense suggests that write-in
candidates should demonstrate a reasonable seriousness of
purpose before placing the judge's name on the ballot
where it otherwise would not appear.
2.Signatures Required for Write-Ins . This bill would, in
many counties, increase the number of signatures needed
to trigger the requirement that an unopposed incumbent
judge's name be printed on the ballot at an election in
anticipation of a potential write-in candidate running
against the incumbent. While such a proposal may help
protect against abuse, it may also make it much more
AB 1335 (LIEU) Page
4
difficult to organize legitimate write-in candidacies
against incumbent judges. However, this provides that
the number of required signatures will never exceed
1,000.
According to the Secretary of State's latest official
report of voter registration, only three counties (Los
Angeles, Orange and San Diego) would reach this 1,000
signature threshold.
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 7-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 11-0
Assembly Floor: 76-0
POSITIONS
Sponsor: California Judges Association
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
AB 1335 (LIEU) Page
5