Yesterday,
California
held
its
state
and
local
elections.
Most
of
the
media
focus
was
on
the
primaries
for
the
governor’s
seat
and
the
mayoral
race
in
Los
Angeles.
But
over
the
past
few
days,
several
friends
have
been
asking
me
about
which
judicial
candidates
they
should
vote
for.
For
those
who
don’t
know,
trial
court
judges
in
California
are
elected
by
the
county
residents
and
serve
six-year
terms.
Most
of
them
thought
that
either
I
knew
the
candidates
personally,
had
inside
access
to
their
background,
or
could
give
a
recommendation
solely
based
on
my
experience.
While
I
know
a
few,
I
don’t
know
them
well
enough
to
make
a
recommendation.
And
I
am
just
as
clueless
as
they
are
on
the
rest.
I
decided
to
research
one
judge
candidate,
whom
I
will
call
Candidate
X,
that
I
have
never
heard
of
before.
I
looked
at
their
background
information
on
places
like
ballotpedia.org.
The
information
was
basic
but
at
least
Candidate
X
didn’t
have
any
Google
gremlins.
I
then
went
to
a
few
lawyer
message
boards
and
asked
for
information
about
Candidate
X
and
whether
this
person
is
qualified
to
be
a
judge.
Some
responded
with
praise
but
others
sent
me
private
messages
with
less
than
stellar
information
that
seemed
credible.
I
did
similar
research
on
Candidate
X’s
opponent,
whom
I
will
call
Candidate
Y.
The
result
was
similar:
no
bad
internet
footprint,
some
colleagues
publicly
praised
him
while
a
few
who
didn’t
think
highly
of
Candidate
Y
sent
me
direct
messages.
I
should
also
note
that
a
friend’s
recommendation
of
Candidate
Y
actually
made
me
skeptical
because
this
friend
and
I
politely
disagree
on
95%b
of
the
issues
of
the
day.
So
not
all
endorsements
are
created
equal.
So
for
anyone
who
asked
about
Candidates
X
and
Y,
I
told
them
my
findings,
asked
a
few
questions
about
what
qualities
they
are
looking
for
in
a
judge,
and
then
gave
them
a
recommendation
based
on
their
answers.
While
doing
the
above
research
on
Candidates
X
and
Y
didn’t
take
up
too
much
of
my
time,
I
couldn’t
do
the
same
for
other
candidates.
So
for
the
rest,
I
suggested
that
they
look
up
the
candidate’s
name
on
the
internet,
check
bar
association
websites
to
see
which
they
recommend.
Afterward,
they
can
vote
based
on
their
research
results.
If
they
are
feeling
lazy,
they
can
go
to
the
AI
website
of
their
choice,
input
the
qualities
important
to
them
in
a
judge,
and
see
who
the
AI
endorses.
Almost
everyone
I
talked
to
ended
up
saying
that
they
would
just
leave
the
ballot
blank
since
they
do
not
have
enough
information
to
vote
intelligently.
If
some
people
are
not
voting
for
judicial
candidates
because
of
lack
of
information
or
because
they
cannot
bring
themselves
to
even
do
a
basic
internet
research
on
the
candidate,
then
it
is
safe
to
assume
that
most
of
those
who
do
vote
have
done
adequate
research
or
received
a
recommendation
from
someone
they
trust.
A
few
may
vote
based
on
other
criteria
such
as
similar
racial
or
ethnic
backgrounds.
My
research
on
Candidates
X
and
Y
took
about
an
hour.
Perhaps
a
smaller
voter
turnout
can
be
a
good
thing.
If
a
judge
were
to
be
elected
through
a
contentious
election
with
high
voter
turnout,
then
the
judge
may
feel
that
he
or
she
has
an
implicit
mandate
to
rule
a
certain
way
on
divisive
issues.
As
mentioned
earlier,
most
people
I
know
never
heard
of
the
judicial
candidates
before.
I
don’t
see
any
candidate
campaigning
on
television
or
radio
and
most
don’t
have
a
large
internet
or
social
media
presence.
So
it
probably
means
that
judicial
candidates
either
do
not
have
the
money
for
a
full-scale
election
campaign
or
it
is
not
cost-effective
to
spend
money
that
way.
Also,
I
think
Americans
in
general
are
not
used
to
voting
for
judges.
Since
federal
courts
tend
to
be
in
the
news
more
often,
people
might
mistakenly
think
state
judges
are
also
appointed
by
the
governor
and
approved
by
the
legislature.
Also,
some
voters
may
not
understand
that
a
judge’s
job
is
to
apply
the
law
impartially
to
resolve
disputes,
even
if
it
means
the
outcome
is
not
what
they
wanted
to
see.
Judges
are
not
supposed
to
be
a
super-legislature.
Fewer
people
vote
in
judicial
elections
for
good
reason:
most
voters
lack
sufficient
information
about
the
candidates.
But
this
low
turnout
may
actually
be
beneficial.
It
likely
means
that
those
who
do
vote
are
more
informed
or
are
relying
on
trusted
recommendations.
Could
this
help
preserve
judicial
independence
by
shielding
judges
from
the
intense
political
pressures
that
come
with
high-turnout,
highly
partisan
races?
Judges
should
be
impartial
arbiters
of
the
law,
not
politicians
seeking
to
please
the
majority.
Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.