Motives Vary for Challengers in Judicial Races

Politics makes people do strange things.

I’ve seen people run against bosses they hated. I’ve seen angry parents make ballot challenges to school board members who voted against their pet proposals. Back in Indiana, I knew a candidate who reluctantly ran for Town Board because her husband asked her to--then she promptly announced she was supporting her opponent.

In judicial races, most sitting judges manage to run unopposed. But two of the 21 Orange County Superior Court judges seeking reelection on June 2 are not so lucky. And, seems to me, they got hit on for the wrong reasons.

Not that we shouldn’t encourage judicial challenges. Judges should be held accountable to the voters. But I tend to question the choices made by political newcomers Arnie Blakely and Richard Hawkins.

Superior Court Judge Gail A. Andler is convinced she knows why Blakely, 59, a Costa Mesa civil attorney, is running against her. It’s simply because Andler was first on the registrar’s alphabetized list.

Not true, says Blakely: “I carefully studied all of the judges seeking reelection and decided she was the one with the least experience.”

Well, OK. Maybe so. But did he have to single out a woman judge?

A long-time beef of mine is this county’s dismal record on judicial gender. Up until last year, numbers for Superior Court judges were: men 58, women 3. Sounds like a Harlem Globetrotters romp against its traveling road opponents.

*

With last November’s election and some of Gov. Pete Wilson’s appointments, there’s now a bit more balance, 52-9. Presiding Judge Kathleen O’Leary says those numbers are respectable. But that hardly makes us trailblazers.

Blakely understands the predicament. “I would give anything if my opponent were not a woman. It was a big hurdle for me to decide to run against her. It just worked out that way.”

He makes the point that too many of our judges come from a criminal law background, instead of the civil field. He feels that not enough judges know what to do when, for instance, there’s a six-party case and suddenly one party goes into bankruptcy.

But O’Leary says that’s wrong. The big problem right now is finding criminal judges, because so many Wilson appointments have come from the civil field.

Andler, 40, is a former prosecutor who also once did civil work. Blakely argues his background, on both civil and criminal, is more extensive.

But I wonder if that issue will fly far with voters. Andler has plenty of experience. And she certainly has him beat on judicial experience. She was a municipal judge for three years before she was appointed by the governor to the Superior Court bench in January 1997.

Andler is philosophical about it. “Mr. Blakely has every right to run against whomever he chooses. It just means I’ve got to spend some time putting together a campaign.” She has cornered almost all the major law enforcement endorsements, plus the governor’s. In this county, that means almost certain doom for any opponent facing such an incumbent.

Here’s a look at the second race. . .

Another cinch sign of defeat: when you don’t pay to publish a standard campaign statement in the mailing that the county sends to all registered voters. Especially when your incumbent opponent did one. Though it costs about $11,000, it’s a cheap way to tell a wide number of voters about yourself.

*

That’s just one of the political realities that Riverside County attorney Richard Hawkins will have to learn if he wants to be a Superior Court judge.

Hawkins is running against Superior Court Judge John M. Watson for one of the oldest reasons known to mankind--personal vendetta.

A couple years back, Hawkins had a civil case in Watson’s courtroom in which he wasn’t happy with the outcome. Differences of opinion got so sharp that Watson cautioned Hawkins with a contempt of court threat. The issue was defused after Hawkins avoided jail by agreeing to pay $2,500.

Hawkins never forgot the tussle. At age 74, he’s running for a judgeship for the first time. He wants Watson off that bench a whole bunch.

*

Hawkins denies a vendetta. He said he looked over all the judicial incumbents and decided Watson was the most vulnerable. Watson, he claims, just isn’t popular with lawyers.

“Hundreds of them have complained to me about him,” Hawkins said.

Hearsay is not permitted in most trial testimony. In politics, it’s a staple. Usually smeared on thick.

Watson, 53, has been a judge for nine years. California rules of judicial conduct make it difficult for him to respond to Hawkins. The record shows a couple of missed court appearances by Hawkins, which led to part of their troubles.

Personal vendettas rarely carry much weight with voters. Hawkins might have had more credibility if he’d just taken on the first judge on the registrar’s list.

That would have been, uh, Andler.

Jerry Hicks’ column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Readers may reach Hicks by calling the Times Orange County Edition at (714) 966-7823 or by faxto (714) 966-7711, or e-mail to jerry.hicks@latimes.com