Judges Picked by Wilson Are Often Contributors : Politics: A fourth of governor’s appointees donated to his campaign. Advisers insist payments have no impact.

One of every four judges appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson contributed to his gubernatorial campaign in amounts as high as $4,000 before being named, a Times review of Wilson’s campaign records shows.

Altogether, 17 of the 65 men and women whom Wilson placed on the bench or elevated to a higher court through April gave him campaign money, according to the records.

The governor’s advisers insist that the payments have no impact on Wilson’s choice of judges--appointments that will affect the administration of justice in California long after Wilson has left office.

“Campaign contributions have absolutely no effect on the selection process,” said Wilson’s communications director, Dan Schnur. “Judgeships are not for sale.”

The Times looked at the contributions of Wilson’s judicial appointees after making a similar check of former Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. As a Democratic presidential candidate, Brown has said that sizable contributions from special interests have corrupted the political process in America.

A Times analysis of Brown’s records last month showed that 118 of the men and women appointed to the bench in his second term contributed to his political campaign committees--about a fifth of those he named to the bench between 1979 and 1983.

Brown also denied that there was any link between contributions and judicial appointments. Wilson did not respond to requests for interviews on the subject of his appointments.

Yet the review of political contributions to both governors is a reminder that California remains one of a dwindling number of states in which judgeships are part of the political patronage dispensed by chief executives. The governor fills almost all vacancies on the bench. Once appointed, judges rarely face opposition in elections intended to serve as a check on the system of political appointments.

The last effort in California to shift the appointment authority from the governor to an appointed commission--a proposal that was backed by some of the state’s leading jurists as well as the California State Bar--died in the 1960s, blocked by those who said they preferred partisan politics to the politics of lawyers and bar associations.

In recent years, however, a number of states have moved to limit their governors’ discretion in the naming of judges.

The most recent state to switch to a type of merit selection was New Mexico in 1988 after voters approved a state constitutional amendment. The governor still fills all vacancies, but is limited to candidates first recommended by commissions made up of lawyers, judges and lay people.

“The bottom line is that appointments have been better,” said Judge W. John Brennan of Albuquerque, a leader in the battle to change the New Mexico system although he himself was a political appointee to the bench.

In California, few deny that political considerations play a part in choosing judges. The only question is how large a part.

Not many Democrats can expect to be named to the bench under Republican Wilson--fewer than 10% so far, by one estimate--and contributors to his political opponents have even less chance, the governor’s advisers agree.

“To say that there is no political component at all would be misleading,” said Chuck Poochigian, Wilson’s appointments secretary and a central figure in the selection of judges. “But first and foremost it is a merit selection.”

Marin County Superior Court Judge Michael B. Dufficy, elevated to his current position by Wilson, described the selection process as “something of a mystery,” but he acknowledged that political activity can make a difference.

Dufficy contributed $4,000 to Wilson between June, 1989, and his promotion to the Superior Court bench in January of this year.

A former Marin County co-chairman in the election campaigns of Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, who first appointed him to the Municipal Court bench, Dufficy said that if the governor were looking at three candidates “and one was a campaign chairman and the other two weren’t and the (California State Bar’s) judicial committee found them equally qualified, the governor would appoint his buddy. What’s wrong with that?”

Poochigian stressed the importance of a series of reviews that each judicial applicant must undergo before a governor makes an appointment.

The most important of those, Poochigian said, is the rating from the State Bar’s Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission. For more than a decade, state law has required that all judicial appointees receive reviews by the commission, which places each candidate in one of four categories--”exceptionally well qualified,” “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified.” Except for appointees who are rated “not qualified,” the bar commission is prohibited from releasing individual ratings publicly.

The bar commission has not yet compiled statistics on its ratings of Wilson judges, and Poochigian told a reporter that he would not reveal the overall marks of the first 65 Wilson appointees, other than that none were found “not qualified.”

But the governor is free to appoint any lawyer he wishes. Moreover, he relies on other committees he has created in the state’s most populous areas to help him sort through judicial applicants, Poochigian said.

Membership in those committees is officially a secret. Poochigian would only say they are made up of “people the governor is comfortable with, longtime dear friends and acquaintances.”

Releasing their names, Poochigian said, “would tend to politicize the process.”

“Some would argue--maybe, especially those who don’t get appointed--that it’s a clandestine, mystical system and say it is very political,” he said. “I categorically reject that. Anyone who thinks that is dead wrong.”

He said Wilson uses several sources of information in selecting judges--including letters of recommendation provided by the applicants themselves. “We don’t use any of them exclusively,” he said.

Several people who are said to serve on those committees are not only friends of Wilson’s but political contributors as well, such as attorney James S. Milch, who confirmed that he chairs the Wilson advisory committee for the San Diego area.

“We are not kingmakers,” Milch insisted.

He said that his committee--the San Diego Judicial Selection Advisory Board--exists only “to make sure we have good judges.”

And he said it was important to keep membership in the advisory groups confidential. “It isn’t a Mason organization that meets under the stairs or anything,” he said. “It’s a lack of publicity more than secrecy, just to allow members of the group to walk down the street unassaulted by judicial aspirants who misconstrue what our role is.”

Milch said he has known Wilson since the two attended law school at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall. He and his wife contributed $2,950 to Wilson’s gubernatorial campaign in 1989 and 1990.

He said that politics plays less a role in selection of judges than legal philosophy, and that contributions play no role. “Anyone who gives a lot of money is going to be suspected and not appointed,” he said.

But another Wilson adviser on judicial appointments, who asked not to be identified, gave more weight than Milch did to political considerations.

“We all believe that each party, when it is in office, seizes the opportunity to appoint people of like mind,” the attorney said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean cronyism, appointing people who are best pals.”

He conceded that political contributions could be a factor in selection.

“In politics, as (the late Assembly Speaker) Jesse Unruh taught us, money is the mother’s milk,” he said.

Several judges appointed by former Gov. Brown during his second term acknowledged that their contributions may have influenced their appointments. One of those judges said he believed he had to contribute to be named to the bench.

Like most of Brown’s selections, the Wilson appointees contacted by The Times denied that they donated money to the Republican governor’s campaign to improve their chances, and they said they were under no pressure to contribute. But several of the Wilson appointees said their political activism and connections could have influenced their selection.

Judge Rebecca Ann Wiseman, elevated to the Kern County Superior Court by Wilson in 1991, said her husband, Kenneth Wiseman--appointed by Wilson to a top job in the California Environmental Protection Agency--was a politically active Republican. That activism “doesn’t hurt” when a Republican governor considered judgeships, Wiseman said.

She and her husband contributed $3,999 to Wilson’s campaign committees in 1989 and 1990--but not to influence her appointment, she said.

Other judicial appointees say that they supported Wilson long before they considered moving to the bench. “I’ve known (the governor) since law school,” said Kathryn Mickle Werdegar of the 1st Appellate District Court of Appeal. Werdegar contributed $2,500 to Wilson’s run for governor, but insisted that the money had no relationship to her appointment.

“It would be a disservice to me and to readers to distort the fact that I contributed to Pete Wilson and his political career,” Werdegar said. “I think I am a very unpolitical appointment.”

San Diego County Superior Court Judge J. Michael Bollman has known Wilson since the governor served as mayor of San Diego. Twice a Republican candidate for Assembly, Bollman said he long ago dropped out of active politics. He said he doubted that the $1,650 he and his wife contributed to Wilson’s gubernatorial campaign had any effect on his elevation to the Superior Court.

Bollman had earlier served on the El Cajon Municipal Court, to which he was appointed by Deukmejian in 1985. “A lot of people subscribe to the thought that if you contribute money it will help you, but I have not found it to be true with either Gov. Deukmejian or Gov. Wilson.”

Judge Roland Candee, appointed by Wilson to the Sacramento Municipal Court, contributed no money himself, but his law firm--Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, one of Sacramento’s biggest--contributed $1,500 to Wilson’s campaign committee and put up $5,000 for the governor’s inaugural celebration.

Candee denied that the contributions and political influence of his former law partners got him appointed to the bench, but added, “I don’t think it hurt any.”

There are 1,500 state judges in California--on the Municipal, Superior, appellate and Supreme courts. In the course of a four-year term, Wilson may fill more than a quarter of those positions--over half if he wins and completes a second term.

Once appointed, trial court judges--in the Municipal and Superior courts--eventually must stand for election and may face opponents in nonpartisan judicial contests. Competitive races remain rare in California, however.

Of the 250 Superior Court judges up for election this year, only 16 face opposition. The election of judges is largely invisible, because judges who have no opposition are considered automatically elected and do not appear on the ballot.

Judges appointed to the California Supreme Court and the appeals courts must be retained by voters in non-competitive elections.

Once on the bench, California judges are bound by the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits them from donating more than $500 to any single political candidate or party, and limits their overall contributions to $1,000. The limits apply to candidates in judicial elections as well as sitting judges, but do not bind those seeking a governor’s appointment.

The American Bar Assn.’s more restrictive model code of conduct--not adopted by the California Judges Assn.--bars all political contributions by judges, as well as by judicial candidates and applicants for judgeships.

Since its founding in 1913, the Chicago-based American Judicature Society has been urging states to depoliticize the judiciary at all levels by taking the appointment power away from politicians. Thirty-three states have done so, putting into place so-called merit systems that rely largely on appointed commissions of lawyers and lay people to nominate candidates--leaving it to the governor to pick from the best qualified nominees. The appointed judges must be ratified by voters, but elections under this system are non-competitive.

The aim, said the society’s information director, Kate Sampson, is “to make the process more fair and more credible with the public.”

Eight states adopted merit selection in the 1980s, Sampson said.

But there has been no move in that direction in California since the 1960s, when the State Bar led the way.

Why did that effort fail? “A lot of people perceived that they had a better chance of getting on the bench without a merit plan, so there was a lot of opposition and it never got anywhere,” said Mary G. Wailes, executive secretary to the bar’s judicial nominees evaluation commission.

Unruh scuttled the proposal, recalled Boalt Hall professor Preble Stolz. According to Stolz, Unruh said the plan “ ‘just substituted bar politics for real politics, and I’d rather have real politics.’ ”

One of the private attorneys who advise Wilson on appointments said he was adamantly opposed to changing the system of selection, which makes the governor accountable for the judges he names.

“Maybe in Chicago or New York, things are bad,” the attorney said. “But in California, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Judicial Appointees and Contributors

Of the 65 people Gov. Pete Wilson has appointed to judgeships since he took office in January, 1991, 17 had previously contributed to his political campaign, either individually or through their families or law firms. Here is a rundown of the contributions, including donations to other GOP campaigns.

Judge Date Contributions Date Appointed to Wilson Contributed Michael B. Dufficy 1/13/92 $4,000 6/27/89- Superior Court, Marin Co. 11/5/91 Rebecca Ann Wiseman 7/24/91 $3,999 5/9/89- Superior Court, Kern Co. 6/29/90 Kathryn Mickle Werdegar 8/26/91 $2,500 4/10/89- Court of Appeal 10/30/90 Lee Phillip Felice 1/24/92 $2,250 9/14/89- Bakersfield Municipal Court 12/18/90 J. Michael Bollman 1/16/92 $1,650 11/22/89- Superior Court, San Diego 7/29/91 Roland Candee 1/23/92 $1,500* 11/13/89- Sacramento Municipal Court 10/15/90 Robert Dondero 1/23/92 $1,000 6/4/90 San Francisco Municipal Court Barbara Jean Ross Jones 1/16/92 $1,000 3/12/90 Superior Court, San Francisco Shari Kreisler Silver 1/21/92 $450 6/12/90- Superior Court, 4/23/91 Los Angeles Co. Edward Frederick Lee 1/23/92 $250 10/6/89 Santa Clara Co. Municipal Court Connie M. Callahan 1/23/92 $250** 10/19/90 Superior Court, San Joaquin Co. Craig Edward Robison 1/25/92 $250 4/18/90- Orange Co. Municipal Court 8/19/91 Stephen Jahr 9/30/91 $250 5/10/89 Superior Court, Shasta Co. Thomas M. Cecil 1/25/92 $150 10/24/90 Superior Court, Sacramento Co. Stephen J. Kane 1/21/92 $100 6/14/90 Superior Court, Fresno County Kenneth G. Peterson 1/21/92 $100 1/25/90 Superior Court, Sacramento Co. Ronald M. George 9/3/91 $100 6/19/89 California Supreme Court

Judge To other GOP Michael B. Dufficy $1,785 Superior Court, Marin Co. Rebecca Ann Wiseman $1,716 Superior Court, Kern Co. Kathryn Mickle Werdegar $500 Court of Appeal Lee Phillip Felice $676 Bakersfield Municipal Court J. Michael Bollman $895 Superior Court, San Diego Roland Candee ---- Sacramento Municipal Court Robert Dondero ---- San Francisco Municipal Court Barbara Jean Ross Jones $250 Superior Court, San Francisco Shari Kreisler Silver $200 Superior Court, Los Angeles Co. Edward Frederick Lee $250 Santa Clara Co. Municipal Court Connie M. Callahan ---- Superior Court, San Joaquin Co. Craig Edward Robison ---- Orange Co. Municipal Court Stephen Jahr ---- Superior Court, Shasta Co. Thomas M. Cecil $375 Superior Court, Sacramento Co. Stephen J. Kane $1,231 Superior Court, Fresno County Kenneth G. Peterson $850 Superior Court, Sacramento Co. Ronald M. George $300 California Supreme Court

*Judge Candee donated no money to Wilson; his law firm, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard donated $1,500, followed by a $5,000 gift for Wilson’s inauguration.

**Judge Callahan also gave $250 to Dianne Feinstein when she was running against Wilson.

SOURCE: Legitech and Capitol OnLine computer services based on data from Wilson campaign reports.