EDITORIAL : BAD BARGAIN; PROP. 220 DOESN'T GUARANTEE ANYTHING EXCEPT RAISES FOR SOME JUDGES.

TAXPAYERS are well-advised to be skeptical whenever politicians produce plans that they say will improve efficiency. Oftentimes their concoctions have a way of putting more money in some insiders' pockets regardless of whether they deserve it.

Proposition 220 shares that sneaky defect. Billed as a measure to make trial courts more efficient by consolidating superior and municipal courts, Proposition 220 also could result in the automatic elevation of Municipal Court judges to the Superior Court and pay them accordingly.

(Municipal Court judges now receive $98,070 a year. Superior Court judges are paid $107,390.)

Proposition 220 doesn't necessarily ensure, however, that the former Municipal Court judges would do more demanding work - or even are qualified to do it - if the courts are consolidated.

Certainly in some instances the judges who now handle small claims, traffic cases, preliminary hearings and the other chores now assigned to municipal courts would continue to do the same work - only they would get paid more for it.

By the same token, supposedly overburdened Superior Court judges might wind up doing the work of people who had been considered their judicial inferiors. That's efficiency?

And in any event, the ``need'' for Proposition 220 has been overblown. Existing laws already permit a considerable degree of consolidation. For example, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court now has the authority to assign qualified Municipal Court judges to handle Superior Court cases.

Then there's the question of home rule. Municipal courts, especially in smaller jurisdictions, have long been ``people's courts'' presided over by judges who must be responsive to their local communities to remain in office. This link would be broken by consolidation, since Superior Court judges hold countywide offices - and only can be defeated for office in countywide elections.

Finally, we are dismayed by the intellectual dishonesty displayed by some of the advocates of Proposition 220.

For example, the ``yes'' argument in the official ballot pamphlet contends that the measure is needed to ``keep `three strikes' working.'' Actually, Proposition 220 has nothing to do with the ``three strikes'' law.

Proposition 220 doesn't really guarantee anything except raises for Municipal Court judges in counties were the judges agree to consolidate. We believe the voters are entitled to more than that.

PROP. 220 AT A GLANCE

Here is a summary of Proposition 220 on the June 2 state primary election ballot:

Court consolidation: Provides for the consolidation of the superior and municipal courts in a county upon the approval of a majority of the judges in that county. Upon consolidation, Municipal Court judges become Superior Court judges and the municipal courts are abolished. Also makes mostly technical changes affecting the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Council.

The Daily News recommends: NO

CAPTION(S):

box

Box: PROP. 220 AT A GLANCE (see text)