Capital Accounts is an occasional chronicle of the intersection of politics and legal policy in Sacramento.
David Low, a member of the Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission and a school employees’ labor leader, said he’s “sympathetic” to judges’ pension beef.
“But it just seems to me that for everybody to hold off on addressing their pension issues this year, except for the judges, well, everybody ought to be in the same boat,” Low said.
The judiciary’s proposals have received a decidedly cooler reception in the Assembly, which sets up a funding showdown in upcoming dual-house conference committee hearings on the budget.
Which side will prevail? That may depend on how much political muscle labor groups are willing to flex to keep judges inside the public pension boat.
Speaking of judges, just where are those 50 new judges the Legislature approved funding for last year? The state has enough money in the kitty to pay for one month of those judges’ services in the fiscal year that ends June 30. And since new judges usually don’t hop on the bench one day after their appointments, court-watchers were told to expect the first names to start trickling out of the governor’s office as early as April.
Obviously that hasn’t happened. A spokeswoman for the governor said last week that she had “no information” about what’s causing the delay or when we might see the 50 new jurists.
Observers cite a few potential reasons. First, the governor’s office has yet to revamp the controversial judicial application. Critics say the paperwork emphasizes trial experience, thus discouraging nonlitigating lawyers � including potential minority candidates � from applying. During last year’s legislative battle over the first installment of 50 new judges, the governor agreed to work on an application that considers a broader range of legal experience.
Schwarzenegger’s new legal appointments secretary, Sharon Majors-Lewis, is said to be still working on the application. And she’s also reconsidering judicial wannabes who have been in the applicant pipeline for months, according to two sources familiar with the process.
Finally, some lawmakers have indicated that their vote to approve the second round of 50 judgeships is contingent upon how diverse Schwarzenegger’s first 50 picks are. His administration undoubtedly is weighing the politics of those selections very carefully.
Minority bar groups have generally been happy with the judicial appointments announced during Majors-Lewis’ brief tenure. They’re also pleased by reports that while visiting the governor’s regional applicant screening committees, Majors-Lewis has been urging members to diversify not just their recommendations but also their own ranks.
The quasi-secret vetting committees have been a source of irritation for Schwarzenegger’s critics who contend that they’re too often comprised of white lawyers from large firms, constituting a sort of old-boys network that recommends a limited class of future judges. Schwarzenegger’s administration has vigorously denied those charges, but the governor has refused to reveal the identities of those who serve on his screening committees.
An administration official, who declined to be named, said that “none of the committees have changed yet” based on any order from Majors-Lewis. But others say the writing is on the wall for those screening groups.
“In Riverside County, the winds have changed,” said Public Defender Gary Windom, who recently joined the governor’s Inland Empire screening committee, albeit before Majors-Lewis was appointed.
“Its composition has changed from the large firms, mostly white Anglo, to include females and with my appointment, the first African-American, [as well as] Hispanics,” Windom said. The group’s recommendations have changed, too, he said.
“The comment I’m receiving is, ‘I’m glad you’re here because we hadn’t thought about that before,’” Windom said.
