[I]n the states, judges are being threatened with political retaliation for specific decisions that offend public opinion.

Leah Sears, Adolpho A. Birch Jr., Ronald M.George and Ming W. Chin are running for office this year. Their names are unfamiliar, even in their home states. But their fates may signal something fundamentally important to the health of our democracy. The four are members of their state supreme courts Birch in Tennessee, George and Chin in California, and Sears in Georgia.

All of them are under attack and their seats are in doubt because decisions they have made have antagonized significant groups of voters in their states. They are symbols of a growing pattern of politicizing the judiciary, a trend that has brought an eclectic group of politicians and scholars together to defend the independence of judges.

Independence Day produces lots of good oratory about the blessings of freedom, but rarely are we asked to consider how much the black-robed members of the third branch of government contribute to the liberty we enjoy. We tend to take them for granted. But when the apostles of democracy visit China or the nations of the former Soviet Union, they teach that an intimidated court system is every bit as important as a popularly elected legislature in guaranteeing the rule of law.

With good timing, a group calling itself Citizens for Independent Courts affiliated with the Twentieth Century Fund, has announced the launch of an educational program to remind Americans that attacks on the judiciary are threats to freedom.

The organizers include two liberal Democrats, former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York and former White House counsel Lloyd Cutler, and two conservative Republicans, former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and former Rep. Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma. They have enlisted law professors, former Justice Department officials and other worthies and are setting themselves up to counter what they regard as threats to the independence of the judiciary.

Listening to them, it's clear they are not saying that the courts should be immune from criticism. Griping about judges has been constant through history and, over time, the appointment and confirmation process has seen to it that even the Supreme Court acknowledges the need to interpret the Constitution in accord with the public consensus.

But the rhetoric in Washington has gotten pretty rough, and in the states, Judges are being threatened with political retaliation for specific decisions that offend public opinion.

When the House earlier this year was debatingÑand passingÑa bill to limit the power of individual federal judges to invalidate voter initiatives and control conditions in state prisons, Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the No. 3 man in me Republican leadership rumbled ominously about having "a list, and a growing one," of judges he wants impeached.

Ex-Judge Robert Bork, denied confirmation to the Supreme Court by Senate Democrats in a battle of wills with President Ronald Reagan, has become a vehement critic of the courts, even urging that any decision should be subject to being overruled by majority vote of Congress.

If the bark of court-bashers in Washington is worse than their bite, the state capitols are brimming with real threats to judges whose opinions have given offense. In California, Chief Justice George and Justice Chin both have hired professional political consultants and started raising money for elections in November that will decide if they get an additional 12 years on the bench. They are reacting to a threat from anti-abortion groups which have vowed to punish them for a decision invalidating the state's parental consent law for minors seeking an abortion. Even though both are appointees of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, the state GOP has a commission considering whether to campaign for their defeat.

In Tennessee, Justice Birch, facing a retention vote next month, is under attack for a 1996 decision vacating a death penalty for a convicted murder-rapist. Voters removed one of the other judges who signed that opinion soon after the decision, and a third such judge took early retirement. Here, too the state GOP is considering getting into the fight.

In Georgia, Justice Sears' opponent has distributed fliers saying "her views are a direct attack on our basic moral standards." A state commission that monitors judicial campaigns has admonished the opponent, George Weaver, for distorting her opinions, but the outcome later this month is in doubt.

For judges who are sworn to uphold the Constitution even against public opinion these are ominous warnings. For the rest of us, they are a signal to remember that freedom and judicial independence are inseparable.

Washington Post Writers Group