Judicial candidates' self-drafted ballot titles spur legal fights over accuracy
In California, it helps to alert voters that a judicial candidate is a “child molestation prosecutor.”
A political consultant drafted that ballot description for a 2012 judicial candidate who won the race, the Los Angeles Times reports. Also popular are descriptions describing judicial candidates as prosecutors of gangs and violent crimes. Criminal defense lawyers, on the other hand, choose murkier descriptions such as “attorney/counselor.”
The state authorizes political candidates to describe their principal occupations in ballot descriptions of up to three words, the article explains. Those descriptions are particularly important in nonpartisan judicial races where voters are often unfamiliar with the candidates.
The descriptions can’t be misleading, however, and that has led to legal fights over accuracy.
In 2012, for example, a judge barred a deputy district attorney from describing herself as a “violent crimes prosecutor” after an opposing candidate pointed out that she worked part time and handled only a few violent cases. In another case, a deputy DA who supervised prosecutors wanted to call himself a “supervising gang prosecutor” because some of the cases he supervised involved gang-related crime; a judge didn’t buy it.
Judge Randolph Hammoc won election to the Los Angeles superior court in 2010 using the job title “superior court referee.” He lost in 2006, however, when he described himself as a “consumer law attorney.” He notes the popularity of tough-sounding descriptions.
“My prediction for next election,” Hammock told the newspaper, “will be an ‘ISIS/terrorist prosecutor.’ ”
