About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
Wilson: Ballot Measure Should 'De-Politicize' California Courts
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson said at a conference Monday that state voters should be presented with a ballot measure that would "depoliticize" the administration of justice. He wants judges to ignore questionnaires and other attempts by interest groups to elicit their views. The former governor, who's also a lawyer, suggests a constitutional amendment that would read, in part:
"Judicial candidates are urged by...the constitution of the state of California to consciously forebear from exercising their right of free speech by refraining to answer any question...which seeks to elicit their views."
Wilson's shocking proposal
"Refraining to answer any question which seeks to elicit their views"? How utterly ridiculous. If voters cannot know in general terms what kind of person is running for judge, how are they supposed to make an informed judgment? Of course judicial candidates should decline to speculate on how they would rule in a specific case, but responding to questions about their judicial philosophy allows voters to weigh and compare their temperaments and suitability for the powerful positions they seek.
The problem in judicial elections is that voters have too little, not too much, information. Many don't know the candidates until they are in the booth, and then have no basis for choosing other than guesses based on their name and apparent gender. That's a potentially disastrous situation, as several recent judicial elections in Los Angeles County have demonstrated. And Wilson would compound the problem by silencing judicial candidates so that even those voters who care enough to be informed about them would be unable to acquire enough information to make a meaningful choice.
Post new comment