Runoff for Bench a Trial for Friedman, Moriarity

An election campaign that’s shaping up as one of the most expensive Superior Court judgeship races in state history has mushroomed into a fracas that may give new meaning to the term “judicial temperament.”

The battle features John L. Moriarity, a Van Nuys-based personal-injury attorney who runs half-page ads in the Yellow Pages and promises to be tough on criminals, and state Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood), who decided to run for judge rather than seek reelection to the Sacramento post he has held since 1986.

Normally, such races are mild-mannered affairs, run on shoestring budgets and largely ignored by voters. But the Moriarity-Friedman dust-up is breaking the mold.

Election-related litigation fees included, this contest is likely to become California’s most costly Superior Court election fight to date, according to Joe Cerrell, a veteran political consultant to judicial candidates and Moriarity’s adviser.

As of July, Moriarity had already spent nearly $175,000 on the race--including the cost of hiring an airplane to tow a pro-Moriarity banner through the skies just before the primary--while Friedman has spent $150,000.

With that kind of spending, the race by its Nov. 8 climax should eclipse previous records.

But there’s more to this race than money.

Moriarity, a Republican, has charged that Friedman’s legislative voting record puts him “to the left of Tom Hayden” on criminal justice and other issues, while Friedman, a champion of nonsmokers’ rights, has charged that vengeful tobacco-industry interests lie behind Moriarity’s campaign.

Friedman, who has represented a sizable portion of the western San Fernando Valley in the state Assembly since 1992, had seemed to be the easy favorite in what looked to be a sleepy judicial primary for Office No. 2 of the Superior Court.

But the 45-year-old lawmaker was forced into a November runoff when both Moriarity, who has spent $128,000 of his own money on the race, and Deputy Dist. Atty. Robert Schirn, a third candidate, showed uncommon grit and voter appeal.

Friedman and Moriarity ran virtually neck and neck, with Friedman scoring 35.9% of the votes--only 5,814 more than were won by the 62-year-old Moriarity, a Calabasas resident. But Friedman needed a majority to win the primary outright.

Last Wednesday, the contest wound up in court, with the candidates accusing each other of trying to mislead the electorate with the proposed candidate statements they had prepared for the official pamphlet that goes to 3.5 million voters.

The voter guide is one of the most important tools judicial candidates use to get their message out to voters.

When the dust had settled, Moriarity appeared to have the upper hand.

In his ruling, Superior Court Judge John Zebrowski agreed with Moriarity that several comments Friedman had proposed to make in the guide about his legal experience were misleading.

“The judge’s ruling is proof positive that a guy who wants to be a judge has been rebuked by a member of his own legal fraternity for trying to mislead voters,” Cerrell said.

But Friedman vigorously disputed Zebrowski’s ruling, claiming his statements were accurate and that Zebrowski is “violating my First Amendment rights.” Members of the Friedman camp privately suggested that the judge was guilty of partisanship, noting that he had been appointed to the bench by former Gov. George Deukmejian, a leading Moriarity supporter.

After a two-hour hearing, Zebrowski ordered Friedman, who is an attorney, to rewrite seven parts of his official statement, forcing him, for example, to drop or amend claims that he was a “nationally recognized prosecutor,” a “victims’ rights specialist” and a “law professor.”

“To read his statement, you’d believe Terry Friedman was the greatest crime fighter since Superman,” said Bradley Hertz, Moriarity’s attorney, hailing the judge’s ruling.

Zebrowski, for example, held that it was misleading for Friedman to suggest that he was a nationally recognized prosecutor when a prosecutor is commonly seen to be a government criminal lawyer. More accurately, Friedman could claim to be a “nationally recognized attorney,” the judge said.

Likewise, Zebrowski ruled it was inaccurate for Friedman to call himself a victims’ rights specialist when such a title commonly is used to refer to people involved in domestic abuse cases. To this end, the judge rejected Friedman’s claim that his work on behalf of Holocaust victims qualified him for that title.

On the flip side, Zebrowski ordered Moriarity to drop one of the claims made in his candidate statement that said Moriarity had been “strongly endorsed” by the Women Lawyers Assn. of Los Angeles.

In fact, the group said it had not endorsed Moriarity but rather had rated him as simply “qualified” to be a judge--the group’s lowest rating. By contrast the group had given Friedman its highest rating of “exceptionally well qualified.”

Zebrowski’s ruling left the Friedman camp gasping, and Friday they were preparing to file an appeal.

Friedman, even as he said in an interview how much he regretted the “undignified” nature of the campaign, said he was becoming increasingly “alert to the possibility that the tobacco industry is using this campaign to get back at me for my support of nonsmokers’ rights.”

Friedman, who authored successful state legislation that bans smoking statewide in nearly all workplaces, said his suspicions were aroused by the fact that Fred Karger, a powerful lobbyist for tobacco giant Phillip Morris, filed a declaration in support of Moriarity’s claim that Friedman was not a victims’ rights activist.

“I’m struck by the fact that Karger is involved in this,” Friedman said. “His most visible involvement of late has been to stop my anti-smoking legislation and trick voters into supporting Proposition 188.” Prop. 188, on the statewide November ballot, would severely weaken Friedman’s smoking-in-the-workplace legislation, which is intended to take effect Jan. 1.

Meanwhile, Moriarity trumpets the support of individuals and groups traditionally associated with law-and-order positions. “Look at my backing--Sheriff Sherman Block supports me, as does the Los Angeles Police Protective League,” Moriarity said. “I’m going to be real tough on crime. The country’s going to hell in a basket.”

Moriarity is also backed by former Los Angeles Police Chief Ed Davis and former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Robert Philibosian.

Friedman denies that he can be characterized as a liberal, citing the fact that he has received the backing of a number of law enforcement groups, including the Police Officers Research Assn. of California. As for his prior opposition to the death penalty, often cited as a litmus-test issue, Friedman insists that he would set aside such views to enforce the law if he were a judge.

“I have had my chance to be a lawmaker in the Legislature,” Friedman said. “I know the difference between making laws and seeing that they are upheld. I’d be able to operate in a different mode on the bench.”

Friedman added, with a sigh, that running for judge has not been all he had hoped it would be. “I thought it would involve a dignified campaign, not the mudslinging associated with politics. Unfortunately, this has turned into a typical political campaign.”