Judge’s Foes Force Vote in Court Ouster Attempt

A recall election to oust Los Angeles Municipal Judge Maxine F. Thomas from her post as presiding judge has been set for June 25, court officials said Tuesday.

Municipal judges involved in an effort to unseat the controversial Thomas forced the election by filing a petition containing the names of a majority of the court’s 80 jurists with the court administrator’s office Tuesday afternoon, said Frederick K. Ohlrich, chief deputy court administrator.

Thomas, 39, the first black woman appointed presiding judge, has been under fire from fellow jurists for allegedly using her position as presiding judge to enhance her current bid for election to Superior Court.

The petition, Ohlrich said, was signed by 42 of the court’s 80 judges.

If 41 judges vote against Thomas at the June 25 session, she would lose her job as presiding judge but retain her position on the bench.

Thomas, who was recently rated “not qualified” for a Superior Court post by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn., has been accused by fellow judges, who have asked to remain anonymous, of neglecting her duties to pursue her election campaign.

The presiding judge has also been criticized by some judges for having rewarded her friends with choice bench assignments and having staged an unprecedented $2,900 installation ceremony for herself, which became known in court circles as “Maxine’s Coronation.”

After a regularly scheduled meeting of the Municipal Court’s executive committee Tuesday afternoon, Thomas met with reporters and said she intended “to bring harmony to the court.”

She said repeatedly that she would not criticize any of her fellow jurists, saying, “too much has already been aired publicly before the bench could discuss it.”

She said she welcomes next week’s meeting as an opportunity “to meet with the judges to clear the air.”

“I will attend the meeting and answer any unfounded allegations,” she said. “Now is the time to talk about harmony, rather than criticism. I’m concerned about what we can do to bring this court together and move forward.”

Before Tuesday’s meeting, Thomas, who has previously claimed support of almost 90% of all the Municipal Court judges, sent invitations to fellow judges to attend “to discuss any . . . matters relating to court business.”

“If at all possible, I would strongly urge you to be present at this meeting to make recommendations regarding future programs for our court,” Thomas’ letter to Municipal Court judges read.

Several of Thomas’ opponents said they would not attend the meeting, saying that issues pertaining to Thomas’ conduct as presiding judge should be discussed at the June 25 session.

At least one judge, however, spoke to reporters as he entered the late afternoon meeting.

“I think she’s allowed some problems to exist, when they could have been handled in a different way,” Judge Alban I. Niles said. “For example, she made a mistake in the matter that’s being referred to as the ‘coronation.’ ”

According to another of the judges who attended Tuesday’s meeting, Thomas was the only participant who wanted to discuss the recall, rather than wait until June 25.

“Everyone else said this was not the proper forum,” said the judge, who did not wish to be identified. “There was a fair amount of tension there.”

He described Thomas’ demeanor as friendly and said she “acted as though she were detached from everything.”

The court administrator’s office began distributing the notice of the upcoming recall session late Tuesday to judges who did not sign the election petition.

Although the notices to each judge include the signatures of the 42 judges seeking the recall election, Ohlrich declined to make a copy of the petition public, saying, “It’s an internal document.”

Each of the district’s judges must receive notice of the recall election meeting at least five days before it is held, Ohlrich said.

Several judges involved in the recall effort charged Tuesday that Thomas and some of her non-judge supporters had unduly sought to dissuade jurists from signing the petition. Some judges, they said, received calls from state legislators and Thomas herself.

In addition, Willis Edwards, president of the Beverly Hills-Hollywood chapter of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, Tuesday issued a statement in support of Thomas, charging that her attackers were engaging in “racism and politics.”

Edward’s contention was quickly countered by Thomas’ opponents, who noted that several of the judges who signed the recall petition are black and that other local NAACP chapters have not joined with Edwards’ chapter in the attack.

Said one black judge: “The charge is just not fair and it’s not true. . . . Everyone knew full well she was black and a woman when she was elected. It wasn’t a secret.”

Another judge, who asked that her name not be used for fear of possible retribution, added, “When it’s known that legislators are calling and the NAACP is issuing statements . . . I think people may feel pressure.”

In her meeting with reporters, Thomas said she had not authorized anyone to make any statements or take any action on her behalf.