[music]

Melissa Harris-Perry: Welcome back to The Takeaway, I'm Melissa Harris-Perry. Throughout this week, we've been talking about the Downballot, those elected offices on your midterm ballot, which get less attention. School board members, county clerks, coroners, and dog catchers, [laughs] just kidding, y'all. You can't actually vote for dog catcher anywhere in this country.

Here's a tweet we got this week from Chris in California about what's causing them to worry about their ballot this year. They said, "Voting for judges is horrible." There's so little public available information to use in order to make an informed decision. No wonder so many of these judges are so bad." All right, Chris, we've heard you and we've brought somebody to help.

LaDoris Hazzard Cordell: My name is LaDoris Hazzard Cordell. I am a retired superior court judge from California.

Melissa Harris-Perry: Judge Cordell was the first African American woman to serve as a judge in Northern California. Yes, you heard that right? The very first ascending to the bench in 1982.

LaDoris Hazzard Cordell: Always, every year when judges are on the ballot here in California, my neighbors call me. Last minute at night, "Hey, can you tell me who this is? What do I do? How do I vote?" It just shocks me that so little attention gets paid when these people have so much power.

Melissa Harris-Perry: In Judge Cordell's recent book titled Her Honor, she writes about her firsthand experience with judicial elections and her more than two decades on the bench.

LaDoris Hazzard Cordell: This issue of judicial candidates on the ballot is an important one, and I'll tell you why, but first, we want to have informed voters, there's no one can dispute that, and yet, our voters are perhaps the least informed about judicial candidates. What's so concerning to me is that if these judges, these are judges, trial court judges, appellate court judges, who have extraordinary power over our lives. I was a trial judge for nearly 20 years, and as a trial judge, the issues that came before me were issues that impact everybody.

Whether or not you can adopt, whether or not you can change your name, who is going to prison, who gets bail? Juveniles, who decides where children who have been abused or neglected get to live? These are just some of the issues. Probate, that's another where people fighting over dead people's stuff. Everything you can think of that impacts human beings happens in our courts, and judges are the ones who decide. They have tremendous power. We don't know enough about them.

How do we pit the best judges when they're on the ballot? My answer is, you can't unless you have sufficient information to know who these people are, and therein lies the problem. There is very little information out there about who these judicial candidates are. Always, every year, when judges are on the ballot here in California, my neighbors call me. Last minute at night, "Hey, can you tell me who this is, and what do I do? How do I vote? It just shocks me that so little attention gets paid when these people have so much power.

Melissa Harris-Perry: Is this an indication that we shouldn't be electing judges, that they should perhaps come to office or be appointed by those who have more expertise?

LaDoris Hazzard Cordell: That's an interesting question. Today, 22 states utilize contested judicial elections. In the other 28 states, judicial selection methods range from what's called merit selection. These are independent nominating commissions to retention elections, that's where voters vote "Yes" or "No" on whether the judges should remain in office for another term, and then there's some states that only use gubernatorial appointments, and some actually have the legislature who make the appointments.

The states are all over the map, but in more states than not, it is this election process. I went through the process. I became a judge first by being appointed by a governor here in California, and then I wanted to move to a higher court, and that's when I ran an election. I did that, and I will tell you as I write about in my book, Her Honor, I wouldn't wish the process that I underwent on my worst enemy. I won decisively in my election, and yet, I am opposed to the judicial elections. Primarily, three reasons, we don't have enough information about who these people are. Second, it's all about money.

There is so much money now that goes in judicial elections outside special interest groups just weigh in. Judicial elections are supposed to be nonpartisan, but in fact, they really aren't. If a judge tends to be more conservative and touts the law and order thing, you're going to have conservatives that are going to vote for that person, and then special interest groups that are very conservative just funneled money in. When I was running, I raised about $70,000. This was a countywide election, and most of that money came from lawyers, so that's a problem. The lawyers who contributed, then they appear in my courtroom. That's a problem.

I think that's a conflict of interest, but that was then. When I ran, it was 1988. Today, one-third of all elected State Supreme Court justices, currently sitting on the bench have run an at least one $1,000,000 race, and money. Millions are just funneled in to get judges to who have a certain viewpoint. I am opposed to judicial elections, and I really think we need to move to independent bipartisan nominating commissions, but we're a long way away from that.

For the time being, there are many states that have these judicial elections and people just are not well enough informed. In addition, there's been research now that says when judges are up for a re-election or retention elections, they tend to change their judicial decision-making. They become harsher, more severe when they're sentencing people, and all of this is to please the voters. Is that the kind of judiciary we want, one that's out making decisions just to please people? Of course, not. We want an independent judiciary that just looks at the evidence presented in the case, and makes decisions even if they are tough decisions or controversial, and judicial elections don't get us that.

Melissa Harris-Perry: Even if we see that a reform in our process is necessary for our future, as you pointed out, judges have extraordinary reach in the effects that they have on our daily lives and potentially, any given moment, even more effects right on our lives when we find ourselves in the system around anything from the question of property to custody. Given that when we are making choices as voters, even with the little bit of information that there is, is there a way to get to understanding something about a judge's temperament, their capacity, their previous records? How do we even begin to find this as voters?

LaDoris Hazzard Cordell: The issues you just raised, those criteria are exactly what people should know about and for which we don't have much information, but there are ways. First of all, we get a ballot, and usually, there's information on the ballot about who this judicial candidate is. Unfortunately, it's very insufficient information, and that ballot information is submitted by the very candidate so that the person gets to write whatever it is the person wants to write about that person.

Sometimes the league of women voters that are around the country hold forums that have judicial candidates weighing in and appearing before the public, doesn't happen a lot, but these leagues these chapters should be encouraged to have these kinds of forums. That aside, we have the internet, you've got Google. When you see a judicial candidate's name, Google that person and see if there's anything out there about decisions that judge has made. In addition, I have an appendix in the book that is not actually physically in the book, but it's online and there's a link to it. It's all in the book, it says how to reach it.

In one of the appendix, I have state-by-state links to every judicial disciplinary body. If you hit the link for your state or any state, it will take you to annual reports of judges who have been disciplined. These reports are startling in that they're very detailed, they give the name of the judge, what it was the judge did to become disciplined, and what the discipline was. One way to check is the judicial candidate, someone who has come before a disciplinary body in your state, and has that judge been disciplined, and if so, for what?

Then, finally, I think the easiest thing to do, and I say easy assuming you have some time, is to go to court and observe the judge. Just go and sit in. I encourage people to do this because the courts are paid for by us, by taxpayers. Everything in that courtroom and every person is on the taxpayer dole which means you have a right to be there. These are in the main public proceedings, and we should take every opportunity, go in a courtroom, sit down and observe. Look at this judge. What's the demeanor? What kind of decisions are being made?

It's a real eye-opener. If you haven't done that, I'd say to your listeners, go to court. Don't be afraid. These are your courtrooms. Only rarely are courtrooms closed to the public, very rarely. They're yours. Take advantage of it and go look at these people to be better informed about what it is they are doing and how they're conducting themselves on the bench.

Melissa Harris-Perry: I love that idea. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell, retired California Superior Court Judge. First African-American woman to sit on the Superior Court of Northern California and author of the recent book, Her Honor. Thank you so much for your time today.

LaDoris Hazzard Cordell: Thank you.

[music]

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.