The California Constitution commands that Supreme Court justices, justices of the courts of appeal, and superior court judges “shall be elected.” It’s been that way since 1849. Yet they are almost never elected or rejected at the polls by voters.
The right to vote for judges has been eroded so much over the last century that it is almost nonexistent. Efforts to limit it further are underway, led by organizations such as the League of Women Voters, which are otherwise considered ardent protectors of the right to vote.
The lengthy ballot for San Francisco voters contains the names of two California Supreme Court Justices – Joshua Groban and Kelli Evans – and 13 appellate court justices. Voters are asked whether each justice should “be elected to the office for the term provided by law?” In two voluminous voter information pamphlets – over 250 pages for the city and 175 pages for the state – there is just one page of information about judicial nominations. Half that page shares biographical information on the two Supreme Court appointees, but it says nothing about the appellate court justices on the ballot.
More than 1,750 Superior Court judges preside over civil and criminal trials and other matters across California’s 58 counties. Fifty-two judges sit in San Francisco Superior Court. Superior Court judges typically serve six-year terms. Unless an attorney decides to challenge a sitting judge for an additional term, the judge is “deemed elected” and does not go before the voters. Earlier this year, San Francisco had a rare Superior Court election because one judge retired too late for Governor Newsom to appoint his replacement.
Voters do not know what is important about a particular judge’s record or where to find the information about it to exercise their right to vote on an informed basis.
By the time Governor Newsom leaves office in January, he will have appointed over 800 judges or justices to California courts. The California Judicial Council, composed largely of judges and court personnel, last week recommended creating 159 additional judgeships to address statewide workloads and backlogs. If the next governor, either Democrat Xavier Becerra or Republican Steve Hilton, appoints judges at the same pace as Governor Newsom, your vote on or before Nov. 3 will likely be your last and only voice in their selection and retention. Neither candidate’s website discusses how he will appoint judges. However, as California’s attorney general from 2017 to 2021, Becerra was one of three members of the California Commission on Judicial Appointments, which reviews, holds a public hearing on, and votes on the initial confirmation of Supreme Court and appellate court justices. Historically, these proceedings have lacked the contentious nature of U.S. Senate federal judge confirmation hearings, with only one of the last 50 hearings approaching an hour in length, and they offer little insight into how Becerra would approach nominating judges.
Access to the information and input into the judicial nomination process exists but is limited. The governor receives recommendations for judicial appointments from regional panels largely composed of judges who hear from attorney associations. The governor asks a State Bar committee that includes non-attorney community representatives to evaluate a prospective judge’s questionnaire and to survey attorneys and other community leaders in the area. Individuals and organizations can speak before the commission that confirms appellate appointments.
Voters do not have access to much of the information received by these panels. As the League of Women Voters representative acknowledged at a 2025 state Assembly hearing on this subject, voters “have no meaningful information to guide their decisions” and “[judicial retention] races are fundamentally invisible.” Neither do voters know, when asked whether a judge should get a second term, what the judges told the governor regarding why they should be appointed to their initial term. While many appellate court decisions are printed and online, most decisions by superior court judges and their oral statements in court explaining their decisions, asking defendants questions, or making rulings at trial are not recorded. Voters do not know what is important about a particular judge’s record or where to find the information about it to exercise their right to vote on an informed basis. This information vacuum leaves both the voter and the judge seeking another term susceptible to campaigns that distort or omit relevant information.
Other states facing this potentially anti-democratic quandary have invested meaningfully in helping voters make informed choices. The Alaska Judicial Council systematically surveys lawyers and jurors who frequently observe judges and provides this information to the public, along with the outcomes of judicial complaints, case appeals, and compliance with judicial standards. The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review provides voters similar detailed information about judges on the ballot.
Until California adopts these types of reforms and makes relevant, reliable information available, voters are ill-equipped to fulfill their constitutional right and responsibility to vote on judges. The voters’ choices will be made by others.
