A Political Lynching

Conventional wisdom dictates that one eschew two subjects — politics and religion — to avoid losing friends and alienating family. Apparently that lesson comes hard to me, although I almost did make it through the last election in uncharacteristic silence. But not quite.

In my 45 years of assiduously following political campaigns, I have not seen a more thorough hatchet job than in the recent rejection of California Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird. With some left over "tar and feathers" for good measure, the same political assassins tainted Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin and ran them off the California Supreme Court as well.

Was it mere coincidence that the three defeated justices were a woman, a Latino and a Jew? Just asking.

It was a very sad sight for me, personally, and the California electorate had little to be proud of. With the tone set by the state's highest elected official, Gov. George Deukmejian, it became fashionable (as well as ludicrous) for many candidates for even the most obscure and unrelated offices to become Bird bashers. Like jackals braying at the heels of a mortally wounded doe, they vied with one another in assailing Bird.

It was a most despicable example of the worst aspects of our political process and, though inured by years of exposure to it, this particular lynching sickened me. As the polls indicated from the outset, she never had a chance.

Bird's defeat was orchestrated behind the scenes by a highly professional group of political operatives fueled by a $10 million campaign chest, whose highlight was the 30-second TV commercial. The cornerstone of the campaign was the highly inflammatory and easy to digest indictment that Bird was soft on crime in general, and on murderers in particular. Her unblemished record of votes against the death penalty seemed to lend credence to that charge, if one ignored the legalities of constitutional safeguards.

How many of her most vocal attackers as well as the electorate in general bothered to read her legal options or considered that she was only one vote and that it took a majority of four of any of her decisions to be effective?

Many of those who joined in the tide against her did not realize she was the champion of the consumer, the worker, and minorities in civil cases involving business interests. A good part of the money and the initial groundwork of the campaign against her stemmed from corporate sources, including agriculture, real estate, oil and gas, insurance and auto dealers. These groups smartly stayed in the background, but were protecting their financial interests while mustering more visible and credible "victims of crime" as a focal point for the anti-Bird factions.

The legal profession did not acquit itself nobly in this fray. They, at least, knew better and should have rallied more vigorously behind the beleaguered justices. Rose Bird, an honest and upright campaign on her behalf, ran it by herself. Without a doubt, she was a rank amateur, over-matched in the seamy world of political infighting and 30-second "say it all" commercials.

Justices of the Supreme Court are not necessarily chosen for their political sophistication or personal popularity, and are not well-versed in political infighting.

In previous elections, no sitting justice had been voted out of office since this method of confirm-reject voting had been instituted in 1934. Ironically, the change in 1934 was instituted to insulate the judiciary from the very political pressures which predominated in the election of 1986.

It was an extremely shrewd campaign capitalizing on the emotions of a public increasingly concerned about crime and heavily supportive of the death penalty. But I have no doubt that the juggernaut levelled at Bird had its roots in powerful financial interests not noted for their bleeding hearts.

Aside from the distressing manner in which this scurrilous campaign against Bird was financed and waged, I am most deeply disturbed by some larger and more lasting implications.

For the first time our judiciary institution has been blatantly politicized. A signal was sent that judges must temper their dispensation of justice with the political realities of the day.

Not only will judges have to run for office like any other politicians and school themselves on how to project a winsome personality on the TV screen, but it's even worse than that. Once elected they can no longer uphold the law as they swore to and as they learned to do in law school, but will have to pander to the uninformed (legally) and manipulable majority if they wish to stay in office.

The legislative and executive offices are elective, and properly should be responsive to the voters who put them into power. But, under our governmental system of checks and balances, the judiciary was not designed to answer to popular whim. Judges are appointed by the executive (President or Governor) with the consent or approval of the legislative branch and under our Constitution were not supposed to run for periodic elections. They were to serve as long as they are in possession of their faculties and their moral behavior and personal rectitude are above reproach. Their legal decisions were never intended to be subject to review by the masses.

Judges are the last bastion of due process, and serve to protect our liberties if and when the executive and legislative branches become repressive and act in dictatorial, undemocratic and coercive fashion. The judiciary is there as the last line of defense to safeguard the legal rights and liberties of the minority against the executive or legislative branch bent on an unconstitutional witch-hunt, even when that represents the prevailing majority outlook.

So I am deeply distressed not only by the premeditated manner in which the political lynching of Rose Elizabeth Bird was effected, but by the passing of an era of judicial independence which I esteemed. It was a degradation of our Constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers which has been the hallmark of our democracy for over 200 years. We are all the worse off for it having occurred.

No Judge in California can feel truly secure in the due exercise of his judicial functions if a determined cabal seeks to oust him or her and is prepared to spend money to organize and mount an effective media campaign. Momentary passions should not usurp the reasoned rule of law.

The Rose Bird rejection bears stark testimony that it can be done. Rest assured, it will be repeated in the future.

It bodes no good for our democracy.