Electing Judges--It Takes Wisdom of a Solomon to Make a Choice

Few exercises in American politics are more confounding than the election of judges. That was illustrated vividly in Los Angeles last June when, regardless of county Bar ratings, endorsements and expensive slate mailings, every incumbent was reelected but one--the one who identified herself as “incumbent” on the ballot. The others took care to put their lofty titles--”Judge of the Superior Court,” for example--before the voters’ eyes.

“Today I learned a lot of voters don’t have the faintest idea what ‘incumbent’ means,” the defeated judge, Roberta Ralph, said ruefully when returns were known.

Los Angeles voters will not have that problem Nov. 8. Retirements have created vacancies in Municipal Court Offices Nos. 4, 6 and 8. Still, though there are no judges in these races, titles are again expected to play a key role.

For Office No. 6, for example, voters will choose between Municipal Court Commissioner John C. Gunn and Superior Court Commissioner Gary A. Polinsky.

‘More Appropriate’

“You get two reactions,” Gunn said. “In some people’s minds, ‘superior’ sounds, well, superior. On the other hand, some people say, it’s for Municipal Court, so it’s more appropriate to vote for a Municipal Court commissioner.”

But what is not apparent on the ballot is the confounding circumstances under which the coming elections are even necessary in Office No. 4, as well as No. 6. Unlike No. 8--a simple runoff between Municipal Court Commissioner Stephen Leventhal and Deputy City Atty. Marion Johnson--the elections for Nos. 4 and 6 are being held because the June ballot for these offices did not count. An obscure--some say absurd--law voided those elections, providing frustration for some candidates, opportunity for others.

Before the law was passed in 1980, it was up to the governor to appoint judges whenever vacancies occurred--even in the midst of the electoral process.

Gunn, a Municipal Court commissioner for 20 years, fell victim to this circumstance in the mid-1970s. He ran for judge and made it to a runoff. But then, before the general election, the incumbent judge retired. Under state law at the time, then-Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. appointed a new judge for an automatic 2-year term, and the primary was rendered meaningless.

New Limits on the Governor

The 1980 law placed new limits on a governor’s appointment powers. The law was also intended to guard against collusion among candidates--a situation, say, in which an aging incumbent judge files early for reelection, scaring off opposition--except for his best friend, who files one minute before the deadline. The next day, the judge retires, allowing his friend to run unopposed.

The new law was very specific in its wording. It states that if a vacancy for a judgeship occurs between the last day candidacy papers may be filed and the date of the election, and if one or more people other than the incumbent have declared for the office, the ballot will be postponed until the next statewide election. A second filing period would be opened.

But this spring, some suggest, the law functioned like a land mine.

Consider Office No. 4: Municipal Court Commissioner Julie Cathey, attorney Barry J. Glanell and attorney/court arbitrator R. Thomas Wire filed for the primary. It was clear that Judge Harold Sinclair was planning to retire. He did not file for reelection in the early 10-day period set aside for judges to file.

Consider Office No. 6: Gunn and Superior Court Commissioner Robert W. Zakon entered the race. Again, it was obvious that incumbent Judge James Satt planned to retire.

Then the ballots were printed. But when Sinclair and Satt announced their retirements, election officials contacted the candidates to tell them the June primary would not count.

“Of course, I think it’s unfair,” Cathey said in an interview. “This section did not appear to anyone to make sense.”

As judicial neighbors in the Van Nuys Courthouse (Cathey presides over Division 100, Gunn over Division 101), the two commissioners have done considerable commiserating. They and the other three original candidates filed suit in hopes of reversing the county’s decision, but the state Court of Appeal found the language to be so specific, that no other interpretation could be made.

Blessing in Disguise

For Gunn, it briefly appeared as though the court’s ruling was a blessing in disguise. Zakon decided to withdraw from the election, reportedly because of the expense. A candidate’s statement on the official voter information pamphlet, for example, cost $10,200 for each candidate.

“Congratulations!” an elections clerk told Gunn when the new filing deadline passed. Gunn was told that no other candidate had entered; he would run unopposed.

“I went out to dinner that night to celebrate,” Gunn recalled.

But over the weekend, Gunn learned that the clerk was wrong. Polinsky, a Superior Court commissioner for five years, had entered the race.

“So I have had the thrill of victory, “ Gunn said, “and I don’t want the agony of defeat.”

Burned by both the old law and the new law, Gunn said he eventually tracked down one of the authors of the present code, former state Sen. John Briggs, now a Sacramento lobbyist. Gunn said that Briggs assured him that legislators had not anticipated this sort of problem.

Meanwhile, the race for Office No. 4 picked up a new candidate in Jack Gold, who also has five years’ experience as a Superior Court commissioner.

Perform Duties

Court commissioners perform the duties of judges and are elected by the judges to perform those roles. For commissioners to handle cases, both plaintiffs and defendants must agree to waive their right to a trial before a judge.

Gold and Polinsky--spoilers to some--have taken different approaches to their candidacies.

As judicial elections go, Gold is running a relatively aggressive campaign. He has held fund-raisers, paid to get into the voter pamphlets and is planning to buy local newspaper advertising. Gold said he had considered running earlier but had not made up his mind in time.

Polinsky is not raising money, saying he wants to be as non-political as politics will allow.

“I wasn’t looking to run,” Polinsky said. “After the primary was set aside and I saw only one candidate was in the race, I thought this was an election I could win. . . . My title as commissioner of the Superior Court is equal to or better than my opponent’s.”

Polinsky said some people have called him an opportunist.

“I don’t think it’s a proper interpretation,” he said. “I think most commissioners would like to be judges, and there’s only a couple ways to do it. . . . This was a unique situation.”

If all this seems confusing, the voters may at least be heartened to know that Cathey, Gunn, Gold and Polinsky were all rated “well qualified” by the county Bar.

(Last June, three incumbent judges were rated “not qualified” but won reelection with ease.)

The other two candidates for No. 4, Wire and Glanell, were rated as “qualified”--another reason, besides their titles, that they are perceived as underdogs. In office No. 4, a plurality is all that is required for election.