Judicial Branch Flashcards
Define Superior/Trial Courts
There are 58 courts, one in each county.They provide a forum for the resolution of criminal and civicl cases under state and local laws, which define crimes, specify punishments, and define civil duties and liabilities. There are more than 2,000 judges, commissions, and referees.
Define Appellate Courts
If you lose your case in the Superior Court, you have the right to appeal in the Court of Appeals. Appellate Courts review the majority of appealable orders or judgements from the superior courts. There are 6 districts, 18 divisions, and 9 court locations. Made up of 105 justices.
Unlike superior courts, appellate courts normally decide questions of law, not fact. They spend hours in private legal research, not in the court room and therefore it takes more money (hence limited accessibility). Because the California Supreme Court declines most cases appealed to it, appellate court decisions are often final.
Define California Supreme Court
Made up on 1 chief justices with 6 associate justices. Hears oral arguments in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. It has discretionary authority to review decisions of the Courts of Appeal and direct responsibility for automatic appeals after death penalty judgements (must hear). Whereas the appellate court has to hear all cases they get, the Supreme Court chooses what cases to hear and must be selective because of heavy volume.
In what ways do the courts have the final word on legislation?
Trial Court: exercise Cumulative Policymaking- they reflect policy preference over time in many cases as years of decisions in comparable cases reveal certain patterns. However, they are primarily finders of fact.
Appellate Court: They can confirm, reject, or alter public policy with a single decisions. They are guided by state decisive (rule of precedent) but are not wedded to it. Appellate decisions are binding within the district where they are issued, but ay be overturned by the California Supreme Court.
California Supreme Court: It has the final say on the interpretation of California law and state constitutional issues. Its decisions are binding statewide and if it finds a state law to be unconstitutional, the law is effective nullified, and the legislature must either amend or repeal the law.
When can the decisions of the courts be undermined? Overturned?
- Legislative actions can override judicial decisions: The California legislature can pass new laws or amend existing laws to override court decisions
- Preemption by Federal law: If the California Supreme Court interprets a law in a way that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, a federal court can override or preempt the state courts decisions and then. have final say.
3.By constitutional amendment: If a court decisions interprets part of the state constitution in a way that the legislature or voters disagree with, they could amend the constitution to restore their preferred interpretation. - By reversal in higher court: While the California Supreme Court is the highest authority on state law, its decisions can be overturned or modified in the future if the court itself revisits the issue in a subsequent case. Courts sometimes reverse precedent when there is a change in legal understanding, societal values, or new arguments arise.
Who was Rose Bird?
She served from 1977-87. She was appointed as Chief Justice by Brown, which was shocking as no one knew who she was and she had never been a judge. She was the first female Chief Justice and voted against the death penalty in all cases before her at a time when there was great support for it. This coupled with issues of Republicans galvinzised on redistricting and the insurance industry in conflict with the court (as Bird decided on a case that would make sued insurance companies prove they operated under good faith instead of victims illustrating what was done wrong), resulted in Brith, justice Reynosa, and Grodine to be removed from office in the 1986 election.
What are the implications of judges as campaign candidates, political actors, legislators/policymakers, and/or lobbyists?
Campaign candidates: Judges at the Superior Court level are elected by voters (though there are appointments as well). Judicial candidates may receive campaign donations from individuals, law firms, businesses, and political action committees (PACs), which can lead to concerns about judicial impartiality. Moreover, Judges may feel pressure to align with popular opinion or adopt political stances that appeal to voters in order to win or retain office.
Political Actors: Judges in California, especially those at the appellate and supreme court levels, often wield significant political influence through their interpretations of law, particularly in constitutional matters. If judges become overtly political, aligning themselves with political parties or movements, it could erode public trust in the fairness and neutrality of the judiciary. The principle that judges should interpret the law impartially becomes undermined when judges appear to be political actors or advocates for particular ideologies.
Legislators/Policymakers: When courts take on a policymaking role, it can blur the lines between the judiciary and the legislative branch. Courts might be perceived as overstepping their authority, making policy decisions that should be the province of elected lawmakers. This risks violating the separation of powers doctrine and undermines the checks and balances inherent in the political system. Additionally, unlike legislators, judges are not directly accountable to voters in the same way (except in retention elections), meaning they may be seen as making laws without the democratic legitimacy of elected officials.
Lobbyists: Judges acting as lobbyists or engaging in lobbying activities would represent a serious ethical violation in California. While judges are allowed to be involved in legal or community organizations, they are prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity or lobbying for specific interests. Any involvement in lobbying would compromise the appearance of neutrality and impartiality that is essential to their role.
Compare retention elections v. competitive elections
Retention elections are used to decide whether a judge should be retained in office after their initial appointment. The justices have no specific opponents and run solely on their records on the ballot. In next general election, State Supreme Court justices face all California voters while appellate justices face only the voters in their respective districts, etc. If the majority votes “yes” the judge remains in office for another term. If the majority votes “No,” the judge is removed from office, and a new judge will be appointed or elected to fill the position.
In contrast, Competitive elections occur when a judicial seat is open for election, either because the incumbent judge has retired, resigned, or is otherwise not seeking re-election. In these cases, multiple candidates run for the position, and voters choose among them. These elections occur whenever the vacancy arises (more common in trial courts). Candidates can campaign actively, raise funds, and be endorsed by political organization or groups. The candidate who receives the most votes in the election wins the judicial seat and assumes office.
What are the checks on the power of the judicial branch?
-Executive oversight: The governor has the authority to appoint judges to the state’s courts, including the California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. While judicial nominations are subject to confirmation by the California Commission on Judicial Appointments, the governor holds significant influence over the composition of the judiciary.
Legislative oversight: The California legislature has the power to pass laws that can affect the jurisdiction and operation of the courts. Additionally, the legislature controls the budget for the judicial branch, and by extension, it can influence the operations of the courts by deciding how much funding they receive.
-Override: The legislature and voters have the ability to override judicial decisions through constitutional amendments or new legislation. This can act as a check on judicial interpretations that the public or lawmakers find unacceptable.
-Impeachment/Removal: Judges in California can be removed from office for misconduct through impeachment by the legislature. If the legislature approves articles of impeachment, the California State Senate conducts a trial.
-Public Accountability: The California public can indirectly check the power of the judiciary through the initiative and referendum process.
What are the pros and cons of the current selection process for the judicial branch?
Pros:
-Merit-based appointments: The governor appoints judges to the state’s highest courts (California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal), which means that those selected tend to have significant legal experience and expertise. The process encourages the appointment of highly qualified judges with substantial legal backgrounds, often including former judges, seasoned attorneys, and law professors.
-Review Process: Judicial nominations are subject to review by the California Commission on Judicial Appointments, which provides an additional layer of scrutiny. This system helps ensure that judges nominated by the governor meet high standards of legal competence, ethics, and professionalism before they are confirmed.
-Accountability: While governors appoint judges, the public has the opportunity to approve or reject judicial appointees during retention elections. This provides voters a way to hold judges accountable, particularly if they believe a judge is not performing well or making decisions that are not in the public interest.
Cons:
-Political influence: The governor has significant discretion in judicial appointments, which can introduce a degree of political bias or favoritism, especially when the governor prioritizes ideological or political considerations over legal qualifications. While the judicial selection commission provides some oversight, it is still possible for governors to appoint judges who align with their political or philosophical views, potentially leading to a less neutral judiciary.
-Retention elections can be superficial: Voters may not have enough information about judicial candidates to make an informed decision during retention elections.
lack of direct election for Appellate judges: Unlike trial court judges, who are elected directly by voters in many cases, appellate judges are appointed by the governor and confirmed by a commission. As a result, the public has limited direct control over the selection of appellate judges, which can reduce the sense of democratic accountability for decisions made at the higher court levels.
