A qualified sitting judge shouldn't have to defend himself at the ballot box

I have already joined my colleagues in discussing why incumbent Judge Hernaldo Baltodano’s qualifications should earn your vote in the primary election on June 5, 2018. There is another vitally important reason to cast your vote for him: the preservation of judicial independence.

Voting a hard-working, ethical and well-qualified sitting judge out of office undermines judicial independence. Judge Baltodano is being challenged not because he is unqualified or has done anything wrong; it just so happens that he was appointed to a judicial seat that came up for election this year. He is embracing the challenge of running to retain his seat the same way he serves as a judge — with integrity, honesty and fairness.

Most voters do not know about the rigors of the merit-based system for appointing judges that the legislature has long required, but they should factor into your decision.

Judge Baltodano completed a lengthy application of dozens of pages of materials about his legal experience and background. His qualifications were investigated locally by attorneys, judges and law enforcement, and by the State Bar’s non-partisan Judicial Nominees Evaluation Committee. The vetting process included the completion of questionnaires by more than 100 legal professionals, including judges familiar with his talents and qualifications because he appeared in their courts, and lawyers who know his work product, work ethic, demeanor and professional ethics because they either worked with him, employed him, or opposed him in litigation.

Judge Baltodano passed a multi-hour interview by a state panel composed of legal professionals and community members, and thereafter achieved a recommendation by the 26-person, state-wide Evaluation Committee for consideration of appointment to the bench by the governor. Ultimately, upon interview with the Governor’s Office, and with final background inquiries, he was appointed to his position as a Superior Court judge.

The framers of our Constitution envisioned a fair and impartial judiciary as a cornerstone of our democracy. They intentionally created the judicial branch as a co-equal branch of government to balance the powers of the executive and legislative branches. Day in and day out, judges resolve public and private disputes based upon the facts and the law, regardless of popular opinion or public fury. They must strive to remain insulated from politics and political pressures. Judges are not “independent” if they are looking over their shoulders to see which way the political wind is blowing before rendering a decision.

California Superior Court judges sit for six-year terms and typically run unopposed for reelection. When this happens, as it did for six San Luis Obispo judges who were unopposed this year, the judges’ names do not even go on the ballot. Indeed, no one has sought to contest and remove a sitting San Luis Obispo judge for 40 years.

As California Supreme Court Justice Cuellar recently stated: “When no one can seriously question the dedication, ability and integrity of judges, those judges should be able to remain in office. To ignore their integrity in their commitment to public service is to attack the integrity and independence of the courts. That does absolutely nothing to advance, and much to threaten, equal justice.”

No one can seriously doubt Judge Baltodano’s dedication, ability or integrity. He has the support of his judicial colleagues, both locally and throughout the state, and he is highly respected in the legal community. A vote to retain Judge Baltodano in office is a vote to uphold judicial independence, which is essential to our democracy.

Judge Charles S. Crandall is in his 15th year as a Superior Court judge. He currently serves as Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court.

This story was originally published May 8, 2018 at 11:03 AM with the headline "A qualified sitting judge shouldn't have to defend himself at the ballot box."