Imperial Valley press., 1908-08-01
MUST ELECT JUDGE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDS ZAP. PoINTMENT IS ONLY UNTIL
 NEXT GENERAL ELECTION
CANDIDATES NOW IN FIELD
Query of Judge Cole Brings Answer That Governor cilIett Will Be Ad- vised to Include Imperial Countys Judgeship In Next Election Procla- nation.

9S9''P li lNCNN ElCNllOU EIOCld-
 nation.
 Imperial county must elect a Judge of the Superior Court at the next general election, in November.
 This point, which has been a moot question, is decided by Attorney,Gen- eral L. s. Webb, in response to a letter from Judge Franklin J. Cole, in which the question is submitted to him. The Attorney-General says:
 T have had occasion to review this subject in connection with the case of Bush vs. Nye, reported in the Cali fornia Appellate Decisions, volume V, page 213. Although that was a case of the Superior Court of the county of Shasta, and the appointment of an additional judge and not the case of the creation of new county, still the same sections of the constitution were involved, and the same prin- ciples had to be reviewed. l became convinced at that time that the first regular full term of every newly ere ated superior judgeship is fixed for the first Monday in January after the next ensuing general election, and that such next ensuing general cleo tion means the first general election after the creation of such judgeship
 The Constitution provides that:
 There shall be in each of the orga- nized counties, and cities and coun- ties, of the State a superior court for each of which at least one judge shall be elected by the qualified electors of the county, or city and county, at the general state election. The term of office of judges of the superior court shall be six years from and after the first Monday of January next sue Ceeding their election Constitution, Art VI, Sec. 6,)
 The beginning of the term of of flee of all newly created judges must be fixed by some stable event, and so the Constitution fixes it on the first Monday of January next sue ceeding their election. Their election must be fixed according to some sta ble event, so the Constitution fixes it at the general state election. This general state election must be fixed according to some definite period, and the most logical period at which to fix it is the first general state election after the creation of the judgeship. This was the reasoning in People vs. Markham, 104 Cal 234.
 Therein the court says: The legis- lature has the undoubted power to create new counties, and when a new county is created the office of superior judge of such county necessarily springs into existence. (COnst., Art. VI, Sec. O. Additional judges may also be provided for in the old coun- ties. (Art VI, Sec, 9) Whenever one of these new offices is created there is, of course, a necessity that it sh uld be prOVisionally filled in some manner until the commencement of regular constitutional term, and if the constitution is silent upon this point, the power of the legislature to make such provisional arrangement by statute cannot be questioned. But if the constitution has fixed the com mencement of the first regular term of such newly created office, the legis- lature has no power to fill the office for term extending beyond the date so fixed
 This reasoning was again endorsed in the case of Bush ys, Nye, to which I have already referred, The court, in reviewing the case of People ys. Markham, said:
 It will not be denied that the legis- lature would exceed it's power were it to attempt to interfere, by enlarg- ing or diminishing, with the terms of judges of the superior court pre-, scribed by section 6 of article of the constitution; but in the case at bar, there was no such attempt by the legislature, nor does the term fixed by the act in any manner or degree trespass upon or interfere with the terms fixed by section of said article. Section of article 6 reads The