- EDUCATION RESOURCES
CJA Judicial Fairness Coalition
How Do Judges Become Judges? 5/30/2023
Why Do Judges Wear Robes? 5/30/2023
PRESENTED BY THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL FAIRNESS COALITION.
California, judges are both appointed to their positions by the Governor of California and elected to a judgeship on a nonpartisan ballot at a general election. Here's how the process works:
APPOINTMENT PROCESS:When there is a vacancy in a judicial position because of a death, retirement or any other reason, the judgeship is filled by an appointment by the governor.
Candidates interested in pursuing a judgeship through appointment first fill out a long application detailing their work and personal history, and their experiences and philosophies on the rule of law and the justice system.
To assist the governor in the selection process, once applications have been reviewed, candidates are reviewed by the statewide Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission (JNE – generally pronounced “jenny”), which is run by the State Bar of California.
The role of the JNE Commission is to gather information about the candidates and to conduct a confidential evaluation of the judicial qualifications of candidates whose names have been submitted to the commission by the Governor and to report its findings, in absolute confidence, to the Governor.
JNE Commission members evaluate whether a candidate is qualified for a judicial position by using the following criteria:
ELECTION PROCESS:State Court judges are elected to 6-year terms in a general election, which takes place in even-numbered years. When their term ends, a judge must run again to retain their seat.
Much like any other election, when there is an open judgeship, qualified candidates run against one another, with the popular vote determining the outcome.
Who is qualified to be elected as a judge?
In California, in order to be considered for a judgeship, a candidate must have been practicing law or have been a judge for at least 10 years.
How do I know which candidate to vote for?
There isn't a lot of information publicly available to citizens about judicial candidates, so it is important to do your research. Most of the time, prior to a judicial election, the local bar association may review and evaluate the candidates and will publicize their evaluations broadly as a public service. Therefore, in your research process, you may want to visit your local bar association's website.
PPOINTMENT PROCESS CONTINUED:Applicant's industry, judicial temperament, honesty, objectivity, community respect, integrity, health, ability and legal experience. The JNE Commission also evaluates a candidate's experience including litigation and non-litigation experience; legal work for a business or nonprofit entity; experience as a law professor or other academic position; legal work in any of the three branches of government and; legal work in dispute resolution.
Once the JNE Commission receives a candidate's information, they have only 90 days to evaluate the candidate and return their evaluation to the governor's office. Here are the evaluations that the JNE Commission gives each candidate:
Exceptionally Well Qualified:
Possessing qualities and attributes of remarkable or extraordinary superiority that enable them to perform the judicial function with distinction.
Well Qualified:
Possessing qualities and attributes indicative of a superior fitness to perform the judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.
Qualified:
Possessing qualities and attributes sufficient to perform the judicial function adequately and satisfactorily.
Not Qualified:
While the Governor uses the JNE Commission's evaluations to aid in their decision, ultimately, the Governor can appoint any qualified candidate, regardless of their JNE Commission nomination.
By Judge David Rosenberg, President, California Judges Association
Why do judges wear a robe when they are on the Bench? What is the purpose of the robe? Why is it black in color? Some things we just take for granted, I suppose. But these questions go to the very heart of the lives of judicial officers and are worth a moment or two of reflection.
The first question is an easy one to answer. We wear robes on the Bench because the law requires that we do so. And, of course, judges follow the law. California Government Code Section 68110 states: "Every judge of a court of this state shall, in open court during the presentation of causes before him or her, wear a judicial robe, which the judge shall furnish at his or her own expense. The Judicial Council shall, by rule, prescribe the style of such robes." And, in fact, the Judicial Council has done so in California Rule of Court 10.505, which mandates that the robe must be black and "must extend in front and back from the collar and shoulders to below the knees and must have sleeves to the wrists." The Rule of Court further defines the style of the robe to "conform to the style customarily worn in the courts in the United States." Interestingly, there is no mandate as to the material comprising the robe - so I suppose a black robe could be silk, linen, cotton, wool, corduroy, polyester, velvet, denim, or even leather for that matter. (I don't recommend most of these in hot weather.)
But beyond the requirements of the statutes and rules of court, the question still persists why judges wear robes in the United States. When the United States formed and wrested independence from the English King, we derived our judicial system and common law from Great Britain. And in the early days of the USA, there was considerable discussion about what judges should wear when they are on the Bench. Of course, British judges wore robes and wigs in those days. Apparently, in those early days there was intense debate about what American judges should wear after independence. Thomas Jefferson and several other leaders wanted American judges to wear suits in order to move beyond the era of British rule. John Adams along with other leaders wanted to keep the tradition alive by having judges wear both robes and wigs. Ultimately, a compromise was achieved: judges would wear robes, but not the powdered wigs.
And what, ultimately, is the purpose of the robe? There have been many theories propounded on that issue. Some say the robes provide a symbol of the authority and power of the state conferred on the judge. Others suggest that robes foster uniformity among judges. Still others offer the theory that the black robe enforces the important concept that justice is blind. I think, to a great extent, that all these theories are apt. After hundreds of years, the robe, like the gavel, and the scales of justice, have come to represent the third branch of government. In the early years of our country, many judges did not wear robes - they wore suits like any professional might wear. When the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court started wearing robes, the tradition eventually spread throughout the Federal and state system.
Now, why are robes black? The tradition of black robes was initiated by Chief Justice John Marshall during his swearing in ceremony in 1801. Previously, in England, robes varied in color. Primarily, they were red, but sometimes they were green, violet and black. It is said that the black robe tradition started in England with the multi-year mourning of the death of Queen Mary II in 1694. In the federal system and in 49 states, the robe is black. The one outlier is the highest court of Maryland - the Maryland Court of Appeals - where the Justices wear red robes. Sometimes, Supreme Court Justices tweak the basic black robe. Chief Justice Jay wore a robe trimmed with red and white on the front and on the sleeves, and everyone remembers Chief Justice Rehnquist who put four gold stripes on each sleeve of his robe.
The simple black robe has quite a tradition as the "uniform" of justice in the United States and California. That black robe links judges together as we interpret and apply the law in hundreds of courtrooms throughout the state.