Close Bird Friend Calls Chief Justice ‘Inept’ in Politics

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Florence Bernstein, a close friend and longtime supporter of California Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, has leveled strong criticism at the chief justice, attributing Bird’s poor campaign showing, so far, to personal quirks and political ineptitude.

Bernstein, who has known Bird 10 years, said that Bird’s “destructive, pathological suspicion” and need for “complete control” has caused her to run an isolated, ineffectual campaign that could have been won had she been willing to accept the help of politically experienced supporters.

Bernstein is the first Bird supporter to make a strong public statement about her handling of the campaign, although it is an issue that has troubled some of Bird’s allies for more than a year, ever since the chief justice decided not only to run her own campaign separate from the other five Supreme Court justices up for election but to spurn the help of political professionals.

The vehemence of Bernstein’s comments about Bird is surprising in light of the close association the two women have had over the years. They have traveled together. Bird officiated at Bernstein’s marriage last year. And Bird has appointed Bernstein to so many judicial advisory groups, including the Judicial Council, the court system’s highest policy making body, that Bernstein has referred to herself in the past as something of a “teacher’s pet.”

Bernstein, who has been a judge since 1976, made her remarks about Bird in the September issue of The American Lawyer and elaborated on them in two interviews with The Times. In the second interview, Bernstein emphasized that her criticism does not extend to Bird’s performance as chief justice.

“None of the criticism is to be regarded as a commentary on her judicial capacities,” Bernstein said. “I am simply saying that she is one of the most inept politicians I have ever seen.”

Bird replied Friday through a prepared statement issued by Stephen Buehl, her executive assistant.

“It saddens me that some do not understand that the process by which you attempt to win public office is as important as winning itself. I do not feel comfortable in following a course that stresses the negative, that ruthlessly attacks your opponents.”

Shuns the ‘Low Road’

Buehl went on to say that Bird is attempting to run a campaign that does not expose the judiciary to the crude brand of politics that dominates modern elections.

“The state of the art now is to take the low road, that pushes emotional buttons and sacrifices substance for image, and that is something she doesn’t want to subject the judiciary to,” Buehl said.

Bernstein argued that Bird, through her low-keyed approach to the campaign, has all but “defaulted” on the election and added that “it is not her office to default on. The office of chief justice is not her personal property, but that’s the way she is treating it.”

Bernstein said she feels it is the chief justice’s duty to respond aggressively to her political opponents because their attacks not only threaten Bird but the stability of the state’s judiciary.

If Bird loses in November--and public opinion polls strongly suggest she is headed for defeat--it will be the first time a justice of the California Supreme Court has lost an election in 50 years. Bernstein said she believes that such a defeat would undermine the court.

Concerned About Effect

“I feel it is very important to the state and to the judiciary not to have a chief justice, or any justice, unseated. Once a justice is unseated, it will be very difficult to have a court where the justices aren’t constantly looking over their shoulders worrying about the political consequences of their judicial decisions,” she said.

As Bird has fallen further behind in the polls--she was behind by 21 points in a Los Angeles Times poll earlier this month--a number of her supporters privately have expressed dismay over the energy level of the chief justice’s campaign.

While she has raised more than $1 million in campaign funds, Bird has done virtually no fund-raising in the past six months. She has made few campaign appearances, authorized one person (Los Angeles lawyer Anthony Murray) to debate occasionally on her behalf, and has hired a campaign staff with only one full-time employee.

This month, her campaign did begin airing a series of 30-second television commercials featuring the chief justice extolling the court’s virtues.

Seen as Not Enough

In Bernstein’s view, the TV ad campaign, scheduled to run for two weeks, is too little too late.

“The court has been under attack for 10 years. How are you going to turn that around in two weeks?” she asked.

Asked what she meant by Bird’s “destructive, pathological suspicion,” a term she first used in The American Lawyer article, Bernstein replied Wednesday that it was a “total lack of trust she (Bird) has in anybody” and a need for “total control” over every aspect of her life.

In a later conversation, however, Bernstein modified her sentiment to say that Bird’s suspicions are directed at the political process and, especially, at professional political consultants who are willing to offer their services to either side in a political contest.

“It is impossible for her to rely on such people. As a result, she winds up running her own campaign,” Bernstein said.