Candidates Agree on Court Merger, Little Else

An incumbent judge and a former county assessor, locked in an unusually vigorous race for a seat on the Superior Court bench, both said Thursday that they support a controversial ballot measure that could lead to a merger of the Municipal and Superior courts in Los Angeles.

Their positions on Proposition 220 were among the few points of agreement between Superior Court Judge Alexander H. Williams III and challenger John Lynch, a Northridge attorney and tax consultant.

The candidates met face to face for the first time as they taped a debate moderated by Century Cable’s Bill Rosendahl. It will air Saturday on Channels 10 and 20 at 12:30 a.m. and 11 p.m. in the areas that Century serves, including Northeast Los Angeles, the Westside and parts of the San Fernando Valley.

The ballot measure--as well as an eventual consolidation plan--are supported by the courts’ leadership. However, the measure is unpopular among a considerable number of judges in the sprawling system that stretches from Long Beach to Lancaster.

Williams has won the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s top rating--well qualified--despite a rare public rebuke last year from the state Commission on Judicial Performance for using a vulgarism and treating lawyers in a hostile manner during a contentious day in court in 1995.

Williams said he had been able to convince the bar and hopes to convince voters that he has learned from his mistake.

“The only reason I’m being challenged in this race is because two years ago I lost my temper,” he said. “The point of discipline is reform. It worked.” He added, “My experience with my own humanity has made me a better judge.”

Lynch, who is focusing his campaign on Williams’ conduct, was found not qualified by the county bar. He did not cooperate with the bar’s Judicial Evaluations Committee, saying it was impossible to respond to its 30-page questionnaire with just four days of notice.

Lynch hammered away at the fact that Williams did not disclose the disciplinary action on his ballot statement, alleging that “3.7 million voters have not been given the full story.” The challenger suggested that the omission violated judicial ethics.

Williams responded that he, like other candidates, was understandably interested in “putting my best foot forward.” The disciplinary action, he said, “is in my rear view mirror.”

“I don’t want to be here, but I believe in public accountability,” Williams said.