Valley Interview : Winning Judge Wallerstein Demurred in Courting the Electorate

After more than a decade in Van Nuys Municipal Court, Judge Robert H. Wallerstein found himself challenged for the first time in last week’s election. It was an experience he did not enjoy. Though his opponent was a political novice who had not practiced law full time in many years, Wallerstein said, he nonetheless felt obliged to hire a high-powered political consultant, send mailers and raise about $42,000 in campaign contributions to foot the bills.

In California, most Superior Court and Municipal Court judges are appointed by the governor, and elections are held only when the incumbent is challenged or the seat remains vacant. Contested races are so rare that “it’s like being struck by lightning,” said Rex Heinke, chairman of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s Judicial Evaluation Committee. Wallerstein’s was the only contested position among 45 Municipal Court judges whose terms expired.

“If you’re unfortunate enough to be challenged, you think, ‘Why me?’ and ‘How am I going to do it?’ ” Heinke said.

Wallerstein was appointed in 1983 by then-Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. and was reelected unopposed for a second, six-year-term. This time he was challenged by Norman B. Goldberg, a 52-year-old attorney-turned-businessman who Wallerstein believes was still angry over losing a case in his courtroom three years ago.

Goldberg said his campaign “did not arise out of bitterness.” He said Wallerstein’s treatment of him in court led him to ask other lawyers if they had had bad experiences with the judge. Speaking of his own case, he said, “I ran because by virtue of that happening, I became aware of what I perceived as judicial misconduct” in other cases.

Wallerstein retained his seat with 75% of the vote. But the process of seeking endorsements and glad-handing did not sit well with the 67-year-old resident of Sherman Oaks, who believes judges should not participate in campaigns on their own behalf. He was interviewed by Times staff writer Leslie Berger the morning after the election.

*

Question: You won the election . What’s your beef?

Answer: I was active in a few people’s campaigns many years ago, and I saw the effects of it and consciously made up my mind I would never want to run for political office because I didn’t like what it requires.

It requires, first of all, asking people for money and asking people to vote for you and for their support. You find yourself in the position of doing something very distasteful. I mean, it’s OK to ask my mother to vote for me. But if I ask you, I don’t know who you are and I don’t know why you should vote for me. Why should you care or know if you never go to court?

Those of us who are judges for the most part don’t want to get involved in the political process. That’s not to say we don’t have political views. But it seems to me that there’s a vast difference between supporting someone politically and asking someone for support for a political reason.

When you sit down with someone whom you may be philosophically opposed to and you’re trying to solicit their support, whether financial or voting support, it’s not pleasant. The political process is one that judges are very reticent about and very reluctant and very unhappy having to be involved in.

*

Q: What did you find particularly demeaning about campaigning?

A. (Laugh) When you win, nothing is demeaning. The problem was that in the process of doing it, I found myself having to smile more than I’d like to. I got tired of smiling and shaking hands.

It’s not that I don’t like people--I love people and I love the work I do because it involves people. But I just do not like the process of campaigning for this office. I certainly would never try to run for this office as an attorney had I not been appointed. When forced into this process, it is a totally alien position for us.

*

Q: What were you most afraid of--being asked to return a political favor in the courtroom?

A. I was never concerned about that. One of the attorneys who regularly appears in my courtroom, the company he represents, gave me a very generous contribution to my campaign. The instant they did that, I immediately transferred their cases to another judge because I felt it would compromise me and possibly give the appearance of impropriety.

Whenever there was a close issue, I would transfer the case. If an attorney said he was going to vote for me and came into the courtroom with another attorney, I’d say to the other side that Mr. or Miss So-and-So is supporting me in the election, and if you wish to go to another judge, I’d be happy to transfer the case. On a couple of occasions, there were people that wanted to be transferred, and I could understand it.

*

Q: So you were afraid of tarnishing the mantle of impartiality?

A. That’s all a judge has to offer. There’s very few of us who are true geniuses. For the most part we are people who are very sincere about what we do, and the only thing we have to deliver to the community is our ability to be fair and impartial, and to appear fair and impartial.

*

Q: Did you do anything you regret now or would consider beneath your position?

A. No. Oh, no. And I would not compromise my integrity on the bench. But it’s just like having to be nice to an in-law you don’t really care about. You don’t really want to do it, but you have to.

*

Q: Shouldn’t anyone have a right to seek elected office?

A. Absolutely. I will say Mr. Goldberg didn’t do anything. He only spent $1,000 to have his name put on the ballot next to mine, and that created the entire contest. He did very little else, maybe two ads in the paper after that. So for a very minimal amount of money, he challenged me.

Let’s suppose my decision (against Goldberg’s company) was incorrect--and I feel it was correct. My question is, should a judge be challenged based upon one decision that he makes? And that’s the whole problem I have with the system.

*

Q: Do you think Goldberg’s purpose was to actually unseat you or just torment you?

A. He told my political consultant that he wanted me to throw up every night between the time he filed and the date of the election. He also said if I would print a retraction of my decision in the newspaper, he would withdraw his filing.

(Goldberg told The Times he did not tell Wallerstein’s consultant that he wanted to make the judge sick.)

*

Q: If the idea of politics is so distasteful to you, then, and Goldberg’s campaign so halfhearted, why go to the trouble of raising and spending $42,000?

A. Listen, I love what I do. I really like my job. I enjoy the work. I work hard. I’m here early in the morning. I leave at 5:30, 6 o’clock at night. I come in on Saturdays and not because I have to, but because I like what I do. Half the people don’t like my decisions all the time, but if I wanted to be liked by everybody I probably would’ve been a rabbi.

I work hard, I like what I do and take my work seriously and if somebody challenged me for my job, I’m going to do everything I can to protect it.

*

Q: What alternative to the current process would you propose?

A. Oh, boy, I don’t know. You know, I’ve racked my brain about it. You know, maybe that’s one of the prices we pay for living in a democracy.

*

Q: Should Municipal and Superior court judges be appointed for life?

A. No, because then I think nobody ever has a chance to challenge a judge who may not be doing a good job.

They talk about retention elections where a judge is appointed--and that may be a good alternative, come to think of it--where he runs unopposed but people can vote to oust him, and the governor gets to appoint somebody new. That might be my alternative.

That would eliminate the need for campaigning. The judge would have nothing at all to do with having to spend money or get on any slates because he would not have an opponent--he’s his own opponent.