Judges Often the Stealth Candidates of L.A. Elections

As usual, the most uninformed vote we cast in this election will be for judicial candidates.

It’s not that we don’t care. The justice system has been the subject of a huge amount of examination, criticism and hand wringing in the past couple of years, especially since the O.J. Simpson circus brought the courtroom into our living rooms.

Despite all this, we have few ways of finding out about candidates who, once in office, could have an important, even decisive, impact on our lives. If you don’t think so, ask anyone who has been involved in a messy divorce, tried to wring justice out of a bum business deal, fought a traffic ticket or been charged with a crime.

Still, we in the media continue to generally ignore judicial elections unless there’s a hot angle. It’s even tough for judicial candidates to get a few words into the voters’ pamphlet distributed with the sample ballot. Los Angeles County makes candidates pay their share of production costs. It costs $97,550 to have a 200-word statement distributed to the county’s 3.6 million registered voters.

As a major study of the process pointed out last year: “Judicial candidates in Los Angeles County elections are stealth figures in local politics.”

*

The study is called “The Price of Justice: A Los Angeles Area Case Study in Judicial Campaign Financing,” done by the California Commission on Campaign Financing.

The report focuses on contested elections, which really add up to just a handful. Los Angeles County has 238 Superior Court judges and 188 in the Municipal Courts. Most never face an election after they are appointed to their job by the governor or are elected. That’s because unchallenged judges don’t appear on the ballot.

Those in contested elections find that campaigning conflicts with the nature of the job. “Judges share a powerful belief that judicial decisions should be made in a reasoned, dispassionate fashion, based on the facts and legal merits of the cases, not the impulsiveness of the media or public opinion,” the Price of Justice study said.

Yet, in an election, only the loudest are noticed. When Terry Friedman left the state Assembly to run for Los Angeles Superior Court judge, he found that he had to finance his campaign for the dignified office in the same manner that he had for the more rough and tumble venue of state politics.

It was expensive, he told me last week, and, “It was a very unpleasant experience. I had decided not to run a campaign like I did for legislative office because I felt it was inappropriate. Yet here I was in an election, and I wanted to win.”

Friedman spent $290,000, $100,000 less than his opponent, and won by 8%. “I suppose I had some name recognition, maybe I spent my money better,” he said. “None of this has anything to do with me being the best qualified candidate, which I was.”

Friedman bought places on candidate slates, the only way judicial candidates can be sure of getting their names out. Places are sold to the highest bidder.

“They are a gross misrepresentation,” said political consultant Joe Cerrell, who nevertheless uses them for about a dozen judges he is representing in the election. “It has nothing to do with who is the best person.”

Cerrell is managing the campaign of the judge involved in the hottest judicial contest, Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian. He is opposed by Charles L. Lindner, a well-known criminal defense attorney, and Ronald S. Smith, a Beverly Hills attorney.

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn., which conducts the most in-depth examination of judicial candidates, said Sohigian, a judge since 1988, was “not qualified” because “he lacks the necessary judicial temperament.” Lindner was rated “qualified” and Smith “well qualified.”

The bar association report was released at a news conference March 6. The news release is still available. And voters can hear the report, which rates candidates in all contested races, by dialing the association’s 24-hour information line, (213) 896-6577.

But that wasn’t enough for Smith. He spent $50,000 of his own money for places on slates. Sohigian borrowed $53,275 from the family coffers. That, along with contributions of $38,133, should be more than enough to outmatch challenger Smith in the slate wars. Lindner, with just $6,000 raised so far, will have trouble playing in the same league.

*

The power of money in these races troubled the California Commission on Campaign Financing.

It recommended a number of changes, including limiting not only contributions but the use of candidates’ own money and that of their families.

I especially liked one--giving candidates free space in the voter pamphlet and permitting them to include such information as the Bar Assn. recommendations. Another excellent proposal was for cable TV systems to air short “talking head” statements by candidates in contested races two or three times a week in the three weeks before the election.

We should also have more media coverage, and it should focus on the legal issues that confront judges, rather than the usual political name-calling.

It’s time to let the unaccustomed spotlight of publicity shine on this overlooked level of government.