Christopher correctly observes that "Our state Constitution permits the people to vote on their judges, a right that surely recognizes that citizens can evaluate whether incumbents have been faithful to their responsibilities." But where does he get the idea that ". . . the voter's right (to vote on their judges) carries its own responsibility; to retain judges who have maintained their oaths and faithfully carried out their duties?"
I'm a "Los Angeles attorney" just like Christopher, but obviously not as astute or creative as he is because I don't see any language in the California Constitution that limits the discretion of the voters to decide, using whatever criteria they see fit, which of the justices to retain and which to replace.
The U.S. Constitution creates a federal judiciary free from direct majoritarian control; the state Constitution creates a state judiciary subject to the will of the voters.
If Christopher and his ilk have enough popular support to change the state Constitution in this regard then by all means let them do so. I object, however, to their sophistic attempts to shackle the voter's discretion by implying limitations that do not exist in order to preserve an unpopular judicial status quo.
GEORGE LEE LIDDLE JR.