Where is the line for judges?

How can local judicial candidates be impartial when on campaign trail?

If judges are supposed to be fair and impartial, what happens when they get drawn into campaigns that involve thousands of dollars in campaign contributions?

That is the question currently before San Joaquin County voters, who in November will elect a new judge in a rare election. Four candidates raised more than $188,000 for the June primary election and two of them, James Morris and Phil Urie, are now headed to a run-off in November's general election.

Both candidates said Monday that, though they are raising money, they will not let it hinder their judgment if elected.

Such sentiments reflected those at a forum held in Sacramento to address preserving impartial courts in California. The forum, put on by the Judicial Council of California, featured a number of speakers ranging from Ohio's chief justice to state supreme court justices to former governors.

California is not like some states, especially several in the Midwest, where judicial elections run into the millions of dollars and include brutal, misleading television commercials. Some special interest groups take on one particular judge for an opinion, despite the fact that several other judges sided with him in the majority.

Most California judges are appointed by the governor after a months-long background investigation by a state commission. There are exceptions, as happened in San Joaquin County, when Judge John W. Parker decided to retire without giving enough notice.

Urie, a prosecutor for more than 22 years, received the largest amount of votes in June's election. Many say that is because of his position.

"I've heard stories back, where people say, 'Well, I don't like lawyers but I like prosecutors,'" Urie said.

Of course, what those people might not realize is that prosecutors are most certainly attorneys, and that all judges are attorneys, too. And that is why campaign money is needed, both candidates said: Voters don't usually know much about the candidates, and the "trial attorney" line on the ballot doesn't do much to enlighten them.

"It's name recognition," Morris said. "I've been practicing for 37 1/2 years but I don't have name recognition."

Whether campaign money helped Morris get the second highest number of votes is not known, but one thing is certain: He raised the most amount of money. His $102,000 trumped Larry Drivon's $70,500.

Urie, who raised $14,000, and Morris both said they have to raise more money for the general election.

While the June primary had a low turn-out, November's race is expected to bring record numbers of voters to the polls.

And that brings up the issue of raising money, much of which comes from fellow attorneys and special interest groups who could wind up pleading a case before the candidate they supported.

Neither Urie nor Morris said they have had contributions from special interest groups, and both said they know who the donors are.

But as would be expected, Morris, with decades of practice in San Joaquin County, said he is already headed off some potential conflicts in his work as a referee in civil cases. Now that he is campaigning, he said he first discloses his election bid and then checks to see if he ever represented someone involved in the case. If so, he notifies all parties involved and lets them decide if they still want him to be the referee.

So, if elected, Morris said he would continue that practice.

Urie has the same intentions, and said he would handle each matter on a case-by-case basis. He is aware that "if it were a major contributor that would at least have the appearance of impropriety."

Neither candidate has plans to publicly smear the other, and they probably will not reach the kind of spending that happens in other states.

In 2002, four Ohio supreme court candidates raised a total of $6.2 million, Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer said Monday.

In the 2004 elections, two Illinois judicial candidates alone raised $9.3 million, said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law school in Los Angeles.

Ultimately, voters and candidates alike must figure out who the judicial candidates really are, though the campaign spending and posturing complicates matters.

It is a subject the judicial commission plans to continue addressing, in order to avoid multi-million-dollar, nasty campaigns that are often seen in other states.

"Judges should not, cannot, must not be politicians," said California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming Chin, who chaired Monday's forum.

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.