California Proposition 92, Commission on Judicial Performance (1988)
|
California Proposition 92 was on the November 8, 1988 statewide ballot in California as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
Proposition 92 shortened the terms of some members of the state's Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) to two years in order to create a situation where terms on the commission would be staggered. Proposition 92 also prohibited members of the CJP from serving more than two four-year terms.
Proposition 92 also said that when the CJP decides to institute formal proceedings against a judge, the affected judge can require that the hearings be done in public, although the CJP can countermand the judge's decision in favor of an open hearing if the CJP determines that there is "good cause" to conduct the hearings privately. Proposition 92 allows the CJP to issue a public reprimand of a judge without first obtaining the review of the California Supreme Court.
Election results
| California Proposition 92 (1988) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 6,259,210 | 74.22% | ||
| No | 2,174,266 | 25.78% | ||
Constitutional changes
Proposition 92 amended Section 8 of Article VI and Section 18 of Article VI of the California Constitution.
Text of measure
Title
The ballot title was:
Summary
The official summary said:
| “ | Specifies the powers which the Commission on Judicial Performance may exercise if, after conducting a preliminary investigation, it determines that formal disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against a judge. Such powers would permit public hearings on charges of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, and require public hearing at request of judge charged absent good cause for confidentiality. Shortens the term of specified members of the commission from 4 to 2 years in order to provide for staggered terms. Prohibits members from serving more than two 4-year terms.[1] | ” |
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- "This measure would have a minor impact on state costs."[1]
Lawsuits
Court cases about Proposition 92 include:
- Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance. 8 Cal. 4th 630, 882 P.2d 358, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 641 ( 1994).
- Recorder v. Commission on Judicial Performance. 72 Cal. App. 4th 258, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 56 (1999).
Path to the ballot
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 92 on the ballot via Senate Constitutional Amendment 6 (Statutes of 1988, Resolution Chapter 67).[1]
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 72 | 0 |
| Senate | 36 | 0 |
See also
- 1988 ballot measures
- California 1988 ballot propositions
- Judgepedia:California Commission on Judicial Performance (on Judgepedia)
External links
- PDF of the November 8, 1988 ballot proposition voter guide
- California Law Library, November 8, 1988 ballot propositions
- Hastings California I&R database
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
