The commission was established by voter referendum in the November 1960
election. The provisions establishing the commission – heralded as "real
protection against incompetency, misconduct or non-performance of duty on the Bench"
– were part of a package of judicial administration reforms. The commission’s
office was established and the commission began its work in 1961.
By establishing the commission, California was the first state to set up a permanent
body to address judicial misconduct. Today there are comparable bodies in all fifty states
and in the District of Columbia, many of which were initially modeled after "the
California plan."
See [Other State Judicial Conduct Organizations].
Proposition 10 – the "Administration of Justice" amendment
– was passed by California voters in November 1960. It amended article VI of the
California Constitution to provide for, at section 1a, the "Commission on
Judicial Qualifications," a nine-member body comprised of five judges, two lawyers
and two citizens to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct. Section 10b was also
added to provide for the removal of judges from office by the Supreme Court on
recommendation by the commission for grounds stated in the Constitution. The amendment
specified that proceedings before the commission would be confidential until a
recommendation was made by the commission to the Supreme Court for removal of the judge
from office.
In November 1966, Proposition 1a was approved by the voters. Based on recommendations
by the Constitutional Revision Commission, the amendment "simplified and
improved" the language concerning the commission. It also added public censure as a
sanction that could be imposed by the Supreme Court in addition to removal from office.
In November 1976, California voters passed Proposition 7. The Commission on Judicial
Qualifications was renamed the Commission on Judicial Performance. A number of other
changes were made, including the addition of provisions for the removal or retirement of a
Supreme Court justice. Private admonishment – a sanction to be imposed by the
commission – was also added. The reference to "habitual intemperance" as
grounds for discipline was clarified by the addition of "in the use of intoxicants or
drugs." Another of the enumerated grounds for censure or removal of a judge,
"willful and persistent failure to perform judicial duties," was changed to
"persistent failure or inability to perform the judge’s duties."
In 1988, voters passed Proposition 92, giving the commission authority to open hearings
at the request of the respondent judge or when the charges involve moral turpitude,
corruption or dishonesty and when to do so was in the pursuit of public confidence and in
the interests of justice. The amendment also provided for public statements by the
commission in certain circumstances. Public reproval was also added as an intermediate
sanction between private admonishment and censure that could be issued by the commission
with the consent of the judge.
In 1994, voters passed Proposition 190, approving more than a dozen significant changes
to the commission. In addition to mandating open hearings in all cases involving formal
charges, the amendment conferred the authority for censure and removal determinations upon
the commission – rather than the Supreme Court – and transferred the authority
for rulemaking from the Judicial Council to the commission. The membership of the
commission was increased to eleven members: three judges, two lawyers and six citizens.
In 1998, voters passed Proposition 221, giving the commission shared authority with
local courts over the investigation and discipline of subordinate judicial officers.
