Are California Lawyers Running For Judicial Office Engaging In ‘Lying Contests’? offshore law

Quick! What does “hyperbole” mean? The dictionary defines it as “obvious and intentional exaggeration.” Another definition: “an extravagant figure of speech not meant to be taken literally.”

How about this definition: “a not wholly accurate job description in order to be elected as a Superior Court judge in California, especially in Los Angeles County”?

As lawyers, we are asked about whom to vote for in trial court judicial elections.  Although my local bar association evaluates the candidates and publishes ratings as extremely well qualified, well qualified, qualified, or not qualified, the association’s ratings don’t seem to be widely disseminated and then when it comes time to mark that ballot, the phone calls and emails shower down upon lawyers with the plaintive question of “who do I vote for?” Unless the lawyer is a criminal law practitioner, the answer is usually one of three:  look at the local bar association ratings, recommendations in the local newspaper (if it takes a stand) or the inevitable fallback “flip a coin.”

Even way back in dinosaur days, before California became obsessed with crime statistics, lawyers running for judgeships engaged in ballot designation “lying contests.”   Those lying contests increased once everyone freaked out that the state was being overrun with crime. Then the ballot descriptions became like a three word parlor game of “who can strike the most terror in the hearts of the citizenry if I’m not elected”?

Part of the problem has been the tendency of prosecutors to describe themselves on the ballot in terms that accentuate their “tough on crime” credentials. What has made it even more difficult for voters to decide who to vote for in the last couple of decades is that prosecuting attorneys seeking judicial positions have labelled themselves on the ballot as the roughest, toughest prosecutor in the West, or at least in Los Angeles County. Six-guns at the ready, metaphorically speaking.

Some examples: how do you choose between “violent crimes prosecutor” and “gang homicide prosecutor”? What about the term “child molestation prosecutor”? How about “criminal fraud prosecutor”?  So much for the ballot designations, which have infuriated me and others over past election cycles as being hyperbolic, inflammatory, and making it almost impossible for one who doesn’t have one of those designations to win. Good luck, civil litigators, defense attorneys, or anyone else who hasn’t had the right day job terminology. Even sitting judges have not been immune.