Judicial Race Offers Voters a Clear Choice on the Role of a Judge

The first day Judge David H. Brickner took the bench in West Municipal Court three years ago, he dismissed a case against a man accused of murder.

Now, in his June 3 race for a Superior Court seat, both Brickner and his opponent, Deputy Dist. Atty. Anthony J. Rackauckas, are highlighting that case, for different reasons.

Brickner wants voters to view him as a judge with integrity, and he points to the murder dismissal as an example. But Rackauckas, a zealous opponent of California Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, said the action shows that Brickner too often dismisses cases for technical reasons. It is just one of many Brickner decisions that Rackauckas has criticized.

The two candidates, seeking the seat left vacant by retiring Judge Mark F. Soden, offer voters one of the most clear-cut choices in any Orange County judicial race in years. The June balloting will decide the race, because there is no third candidate running who could force a runoff election in November.

In a second Superior Court race, three candidates are seeking the seat left vacant by retiring Judge James F. Judge. They are William W. Bedsworth, an Orange County deputy district attorney; Robert H. Gallivan, an attorney in Irvine, and Joseph L. Barilla, a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County.

In a third race, incumbent William F. McDonald is being challenged by James E. Wilkoski, an Anaheim attorney.

The Brickner-Rackauckas race, however, has drawn the most attention. Both candidates are married and each has four children--but the similarities end there.

The two men, for example, have sharply different campaign styles. Rackauckas has tried to portray Brickner, an appointee of former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., as a liberal judge. Brickner’s strategy is to campaign on his record and ignore Rackauckas.

The candidates also differ on the role of a Superior Court judge. Brickner sees the job in traditional terms, deciding issues on a case-by-case basis. Rackauckas, on the other hand, believes that a Superior Court seat is a good platform from which to promote court reform.

However, the biggest difference between the two men is whether Chief Justice Bird’s candidacy in November should be an issue in their race.

Brickner says the issue should be irrelevant in the Superior Court race and has steadfastly refused to take a position on Bird’s confirmation. He has said that the central issue is whether his background in the law makes him more qualified than his opponent.

Yet Rackauckas believes it is an issue and has attacked Brickner for refusing to take a position. While he agrees that qualifications are important, Rackauckas insists that his opponent must answer to the voters regarding Bird.

‘Most Important Issue’

“It’s the most important issue voters face this year,” said Rackauckas, who has criticized Bird’s record in reversing death penalty verdicts. “It’s inexcusable for anybody asking for voters’ support to sit on the fence on the Rose Bird issue.”

But Brickner disagrees, saying: “A judge should be wise and fair and decisive, firm and industrious, independent, and knowledgeable about the law. I don’t think your views on Rose Bird have anything to do with whether you have those qualities or not.”

He added that his view of judicial ethics prevents him from taking stands on political issues, Bird included. It is even more important that he stand mute on the Bird issue while he is actively involved in running for a Superior Court seat, Brickner said.

If past experience is any guide, Brickner would seem to have a decided advantage over Rackauckas. Rarely has a non-judge defeated an Orange County Municipal Court judge seeking a Superior Court seat. But Rackauckas believes that this year is different--and all because of Bird.

‘Takes Toughest Cases’

Rackauckas, 43, has for years been one of the county’s leading homicide prosecutors. A graduate of the Loyola University School of Law, he has been a member of the Orange County district attorney’s office for 14 years.

“He’s a racehorse around here,” one of his superiors said. “He takes the cases that are the toughest and he brings in guilty verdicts.”

The murder convictions of William Gullet and Ronald Ewing are a case in point. Gullet and Ewing were accused of the kidnap-murder of a Rossmoor woman 10 years ago and were arrested soon after the woman’s body was found, but the case was later dismissed for lack of evidence.

Three years ago, when Rackauckas returned from a year’s leave of absence, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. James Enright asked him to determine if the two cases could be revived. Rackauckas refiled the charges and, in separate trials, both men were convicted of first-degree murder.

Yet Rackauckas’ courtroom victories are overshadowed by his zealous opposition to Bird, according to some colleagues.

Joined Recall Drive

“Tony is obsessed with getting her off the bench,” one attorney said. “I just hope voters don’t think he is too obsessed and hold it against him.”

In fact, Bird was the reason Rackauckas took a leave of absence four years ago. He spent a year in Sacramento directing a petition drive to try to get her recalled. The drive failed for lack of money, but that hasn’t discouraged him.

Earlier, Rackauckas was angered when Bird voted in 1978 to reverse the death penalty sentence of convicted killer Maurice Thompson, whom Rackauckas had prosecuted.

Brickner, 46, is a former prosecutor but primarily practiced civil and criminal law before he was appointed to the bench in 1983. A graduate of the UCLA Law School, he is a former director of the Orange County Bar Assn. and a former president of the Barristers Club, whose members are mostly young lawyers.

Brickner has emphasized his broad legal background and makes no mention of Rackauckas. He appears unconcerned by his opponent’s hard-hitting tactics.

Ethical Campaign Stressed

“My only message is, I am a person of pretty broad experience who is available to have the job, and would love to do the work,” Brickner said. “If the voters want me, I’ll be delighted. If I can just get them to choose on the basis of qualification, I will have done everything I’ve wanted to do with my candidacy.”

Running an ethical campaign, Brickner said, is more important to him than winning. For example, the ballot will refer to him as “municipal judge.” In the past, some municipal judges running for the Superior Court have been listed on ballots only as “judge” in an apparent attempt to make voters believe that they are incumbents.

Neither Brickner nor Rackauckas plans to spend much money in the campaign, yet both paid the $7,800 fee for the campaign statement to go to voters with the sample ballots. The statements mirror their campaign approaches.

Rackauckas emphasizes his anti-Bird position, takes swipes at Brickner and touts his record as a prosecutor. Brickner, on the other hand, criticizes Rackauckas’ view that a Superior Court judge can and should reform the courts, saying that judges who pursue that goal often find themselves ineffective.

Supports Death Penalty

While Brickner has emphasized campaign ethics, he is well aware that he needs to capture conservative votes. He is quick to point out that he is a Republican and emphasizes in his campaign statement that he supports the death penalty.

However, Rackauckas charges that Brickner “only pays lip service” to the death penalty. He noted that Brickner, in the only two death penalty cases to come before him, eliminated a possible death verdict by deciding that prosecutors had not produced sufficient evidence to justify such a penalty.

Brickner smiled at the criticism, saying: “I had to follow the law. I can’t let my own views interfere if the evidence isn’t there.”