A Christian lobbying group has pumped controversy into a traditionally staid state judges' race with the innocuous action of surveying the judges about their opinions.

Three Inland Empire state appellate court justices seeking to keep their jobs in the Nov. 3 election were among the 40 targeted with questionnaires from the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition, best known for its opposition to gay rights. The group's interpretation of judges' responses ascribed a political philosophy to them, something the judges say they had studiously avoided in their answers.

The questionnaire sought to define where justices stand on the political spectrum by asking about their political affiliations, philosophy and stance on the Constitution. But in a nonpartisan race where the candidates try to avoid politics, justices deemed it an inappropriate area of inquiry.

Not so, said Beverly Sheldon, research coordinator for the coalition and wife of its leader, the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. The questionnaire was designed to inform the public about elected officials who are important but largely anonymous.

"These questions were a way to ask them, when making a decision, what their philosophy is," Sheldon said."I frankly think that's a fair question." Justices Manuel Ramirez, Barton C. Gaut and James D. Ward, in a joint response to their individual questionnaires, intended to avoid questions about their philosophy by instead explaining their role as appellate judges.

Court of Appeal justices are appointed by the governor and more than a third of them come before the voters every four years to remain on the bench.

Six justices sit in San Bernardino and review decisions in civil and criminal cases from the Inland Empire and Inyo County. That court is part of a larger appellate district that includes San Diego and Orange counties.

The judges did not object to sharing their backgrounds and qualifications with anyone who asks, they said, nor did they fault the coalition for seeking information to guide voters.

"When I'm on the ballot," Ward said, "my obligation is to respond to inquiries from the public with my qualifications, what I've done in my life."

But attempts to politicize the judiciary, either from the left or right, are improper, he said. Appellate opinions should be based on the law, not the personal views of a particular justice.

"We are nonpolitical and (the race) should be nonpolitical," Ward said.

Statewide, of the 40 Court of Appeal justices up for retention in November, 14 answered some of the questions and the rest, including those in Los Angeles and San Francisco, ignored the survey entirely.

To gauge political leanings, the coalition questionnare asked justices whether their judicial philosophy is more in line with Robert Bork, who interprets the Constitution by seeking to abide by the framers' intent, or Laurence Tribe, who views the Constitution as a changing document that adjusts to the times. Instead of endorsing Bork or Tribe, the three justices clarified their "limited role" to review cases on appeal and to examine the trial record for errors. They are not legislators, they noted, and do not address federal constitutional issues.

But they were misunderstood, they said..

The coalition interpreted the justices' responses in a "California voters guide" that labels the three San Bernardino justices as ascribing to Bork's judicial philosophy.

"There was an editorial translation that left an erroneous impression," Ward said. "Needless to say, I was concerned."

The justices agreed that if they had expressed a preference for the views of either Bork or Tribe, it would have violated their ethical obligations as jurists.

"There's a bright line there and we couldn't cross over that bright line," said, Ramirez, presiding justice of the San Bernardino division of the 4th District Court of Appeal. "We have an ethical responsibility to maintain the integrity of the process and the dignity of the process as well. We can't go around giving a judicial philosophy."

The organization acknowledges reading between the lines to determine where the judges stood philosophically, Sheldon said.

"In what they wrote, they did not sound like they make up the law as they go along," Sheldon said. That, she said, is consistent with Bork's view.

"We think it's a fair extrapolation," Sheldon said.

Clark Kelso, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and an expert on California's Court of Appeal, decried the coalition's approach to evaluating justices.

"The people who drafted the questions obviously have a wholly simplistic view of judicial philosophy and jurisprudence," Kelso said.

"To believe you can categorize judges into just two camps betrays a woeful misunderstanding of judicial philosophy and is grossly misleading."

The coalition, which has received no complaints about the guide, plans to distribute it to more than a million Californians through churches and direct mail but will not be endorsing any judicial candidate, Sheldon said.

Ramirez said he and other justices are still talking about what, if anything, they will do.

In addition to the court of appeals, the coalition evaluated the four Supreme Court justices up for retention Nov. 3 based on their opinions in three cases dealing generally with abortion, property rights and religious rights, an approach that judge Ramirez took issue with.

"It's not as simple as reading opinions," Ramirez said. "There's a professional side to the individual, a community side to the individual and some of that can be gleaned from the biographies."

This unprecedented attention being paid to state appellate court justices, Kelso said, stems from unpopular decisions on the death penalty and voter initiatives that actually came from federal appellate courts.

In 1995, Louis Sheldon's coalition sent out a mailing critical of Republicans who supported gambling. That miffed several GOP legislators who said they are in accord with Sheldon on most other social issues, but were being unfairly attacked for their votes on gambling.

Published 9/23/1998