Lawyers and judicial candidates themselves contribute three-quarters of the campaign funds in superior court elections, according to a study released today by the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC). Approximately two-thirds of the attorney contributions come from plaintiff trial lawyers.

The study covered 16 contested superior court elections in 1994 and 1996 in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco counties. Ten of the races were in Los Angeles County. (Note: The entire study is available at www.cjac.org or may be requested from Civil Justice Association of California.)

"The public should be aware of campaign contributions to judges," commented John H. Sullivan, Civil Justice Association of California president. "Judges are governed by much the same campaign reporting laws that apply to candidates for the Legislature and statewide offices, and the law's intent is the same -- better information for the electorate."

Sullivan said that California's process for selecting and electing judges receives high marks in comparison with many other states.

"We don't have the multitude of big money, contested, partisan elections at every level that some states experience."

California superior court judges must run for re-election every six years, but if no other candidate files for the position the incumbent judge is automatically re-elected. In any given election year only a small number of the state's 800 superior court judges faces a contested election. Most contested races occur in Los Angeles. The Civil Justice Association of California study did not find a trend one way or the other in the percentage of contested races over the past several years.

"While our judges are generally able to do their jobs without undue political pressure, our study turns on some caution lights," Sullivan said. "When judicial candidates solicit or accept contributions from lawyers who may appear face-to-face before them, it can create an appearance of impropriety regardless of how well a judge adheres to the Canons of Judicial Ethics. As campaigns in metropolitan areas become more expensive and the need for campaign funds increases, matters get worse."

While the Civil Justice Association of California study made no recommendations for changing campaign finance rules, Sullivan said lawmakers should consider requiring disclosure of significant contributions made by attorneys, their firms and their clients whenever a matter is assigned to a judge receiving those contributions. Another option would be to make contribution reports readily available in each courthouse.

"Much of the problem can be avoided if campaign costs can be held down. One way to help on this score is to provide a better opportunity for judicial candidates to describe their experience and qualifications and make a statement in official ballot pamphlets. This might reduce candidates' growing reliance on ‘slate mailers,' which provide little information but try to make a candidate more appealing by association with other candidates and whatever group is sponsoring the mailing."

Sullivan also said he believes that partisan endorsements of judicial candidates would probably lead to escalated campaign funding and make it more difficult for voters to judge each candidate on the basis of his or her individual merit. The Civil Justice Association of California study's data are relatively close to the findings of a 1995 Los Angeles County study "The Price of Justice" done by the private California Commission on Campaign Financing. For example, both studies found that in the vast majority of races, winners were incumbents who out-spent challengers.

The Civil Justice Association of California study found that contributions per contested superior court election averaged $162,626. Broken down by source, average contributions per race were: candidates themselves - $84,127; plaintiff's attorneys -- $19,196; all other attorneys -- $10,672; non-attorneys -- $31,615; unidentified contributors (contributions under $100) -- $17,015.

The highest average contribution total per race was $192,747 in Los Angeles County.