In your editorial (Oct. 27), "Judicial Decisions," you urge retention of not only the six State Supreme Court justices up for confirmation, but also of the 14 justices of the Court of Appeal now serving on that court. All of these are uncontested in the Nov. 4 election and require a vote of yes or no.
In the same editorial are your recommendations for contested seats for the Superior Court and for a seat on the Pasadena Municipal Court.
It is curious that, whereas your choices for the contested seats are based upon your opinions describing one candidate as "better qualified by virtue of experience, training and temperament," another as "demonstrated her unsuitability," and a third as "better qualified," you apparently do not adhere to applying the same standards to uncontested seats.
Does this mean that the voter must automatically vote yes for an incumbent justice regardless of experience, training and temperament simply because there is no opponent for comparison? Your past editorials would indicate that this is your belief. I disagree with you.
Voters should apply the same standards for justices whether or not they are opposed for election; whether or not they are running for confirmation or retention or initial election.