Two days ago, when Governor Gavin Newsom nominated Supreme Court Justice Patricia Guerrero to be California’s next chief justice, he also filed a writ petition in superior court to require that the voter information guide for this November’s election include a statement of Guerrero’s qualifications to be chief justice.
The state voter information guide must contain “information on justices of the Supreme Court who are subject to confirmation or retention.” (The guide also explains the system for choosing, confirming, and electing Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices.) But, according to the writ petition, the Secretary of State gave the Supreme Court justices who were prospective candidates until only July 20 to complete a Judicial Information Questionnaire, information from which would be included in the guide. That deadline was before Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye announced her retirement and before Newsom nominated Guerrero.
The writ petition reports that both the Secretary of State and the State Printer approve of the relief being sought.
The constitutional process for nominating candidates for Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices (article VI, section 16(d)) is out of sync with standard ballot deadlines in the Election Code. The Governor’s writ petition illuminates just one of them. (See also here.)
Normally, statutes should be changed to conform to constitutional requirements. However, in this case, given the tight time constraints faced by election officials, it would make more sense to amend the constitution, probably by moving up a month or more the deadline for justices with expiring terms to file their declarations of candidacy.