A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF JUDICIAL SELECTION METHODS IN CALIFORNIA INDICATES THAT RESISTANCE TO THE GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES REFLECTED POLICY PREFERENCES AND EXPECTATIONS THAT SUCH A CHANGE WOULD AFFECT JUDICIAL DECISIONS. DECISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FROM 1923 THROUGH 1934 WERE COMPARED WITH DECISIONS OF THE GUBERNATORIALLY-APPOINTED HIGH COURT FROM 1935 THROUGH 1946. OVER 1,000 CASES WERE CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO BUSINESS REGULATION, INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COMPANY, INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COMPANY (PERSONAL INJURY), INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INJURY), COMPANY VERSUS GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INJURY), AND CRIMINAL APPEALS. CONTRARY TO EXPECTATIONS OF BOTH ADVOCATES AND OPPONENTS OF GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENT, THE SUPREME COURT AFTER 1935 WAS NO MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN ITS PREDECESSOR. THE PERCENTAGE OF LIBERAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS DID NOT CHANGE APPRECIABLY, 48 PERCENT DURING ELECTIVE YEARS VERSUS 47 PERCENT AFTER THE SHIFT TO GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENT. FURTHER STUDY INVOLVING MORE STATE COURTS AT TRIAL AND APPELLATE LEVELS AND OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME IS RECOMMENDED TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF JUDICIAL SELECTION REFORM PROPOSALS. SUPPORTING DATA AND FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)