Eleven of Monterey County’s judges are up for re-election in June. But none of their names will appear on the ballot. That’s because nary an opponent is challenging any of them. It’s not some strange phenomenon that affects just Monterey County. Judicial elections traditionally aren’t hotly contested races that garner much attention – or interest. If past judicial elections are any indication, the ballot designation of “incumbent” is much the same as “winner.”

Even when there is an unoccupied seat on the bench, it’s usually filled by appointment of the governor in a closed-door process that critics call undemocratic.

Things are different this year. With the retirement of Monterey County Superior Court Judge Stephen Sillman, voters will get that rare opportunity to elect a judge from a pool of candidates that doesn’t include an incumbent.

Four are vying for Sillman’s seat: Mark Hood, Todd Hornik, Luma Serrano Williams and Tom Wills. On the surface, they couldn’t be more dissimilar.

Hood – who works for the District Attorney’s office in Santa Clara, is known as a by-the-book kinda guy. Mr. Ethics. He probably gets the bird – often – for going 55mph in the fast lane.

Hornik is Hood’s polar opposite. A veteran of the Monterey County District Attorney’s office, Hornik says what he thinks, makes no apologies, and has probably given Hood the bird on Highway 1 in morning traffic.

Serrano Williams is a brainiac who’s the product of Salinas’ Alisal High School and Columbia Law, she holds bar cards in three states, speaks three languages, and has depth of experience that spans prosecution, defense, civil law, labor law, tax law and so on.

Wills is referred to by opponents and supporters alike as the anointed one, the bow tie-wearing, 30-year veteran of civil law in Monterey County whose endorsement list reads like a Who’s Who and includes most every member of the local bench. Despite this, “I’m not beholden to anyone,” Wills says. “Some have suggested that at times I’m sort of tied into an old boys networks on the bench. That’s not true. I’m not. I call it like I see it.”

They all share one thing in common: concern that voters are ambivalent about which one of them gets the job.

“This is an unbelievable opportunity to choose the judiciary, a chance to become involved in the most fundamental act of what it is to be in a democracy,” Hornik says.

He says the race has humbled him – particularly the process of endorsements. “At the same time, it drives me, because I firmly believe that the public is entitled to have someone who understands the law, who understands the courthouse, run the courthouse,” he says. “And with my years of experience, day in and day out in the courthouse, I firmly believe that there’s nobody better for this position. If I thought there was a better qualified candidate on the ballot, I’d back out in a moment.”

Wills says that while every judge is beholden to the same sets of rules and laws, it makes a difference who dons the robe. “You have a lot of discretion in some matters, the ability to make factual determinations,” he says. “A judge is, in a sense, an ambassador to the community.”

“It’s not a popularity contest,” Hood says, “it’s about who can be fair and who can make the best decisions for the community.”

Hood says the community change at the judicial level needs to start with how courts deal with gangs. He suggests programs that have long been successful in other crime-specific courts like domestic violence, family court, juvenile and drug courts, can work with gangs, too. “They need review periods,” he says, “someone to check to see that they’ve had tattoos removed, that they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing, going to school, not affiliating with other gang members.”

Serrano Williams agrees that community safety is a key issue in the race and something she feels she’s best suited to tackle. “I’ve known this community all of my life,” she says. “I’ve seen its worst, and I’ve seen its best. I’ve lived it.” She says she sees herself as an extension of a community that tends to feel under-represented and says the bench needs the balance she brings as a Hispanic woman.

Wills is open about the sordid history of the bench – the jilted staffers, the accusations, the quietly settled lawsuits, the backhouse gossip and the headlines. He embraces the topic that makes the other three visibly cringe. “I think I could help restore some respect and dignity to the bench,” he says. “I’d like to help out in restoring the public’s faith.”

While the Superior Court judgeship is technically a six-year term, few – like the 11 other judges that could have ended up on the June ballot – ever face challengers. So winning an appointment or an election generally means the judge will remain on the bench until retirement or removal. And with that robe comes awesome power and responsibility.