Seven for Superior Court

In a year in which county voters will be faced with choices for president, U.S. senator, state legislators, statewide propositions and the important ballot measure regarding an El Toro airport, it would be easy to overlook candidates for Superior Court judgeships.

But the judges play an important part in Orange County. They are the men and women who interpret and apply the law at the local level. This year, one incumbent judge is being challenged; six other judicial offices are vacant and have drawn two or more candidates.

The usual path to the bench in Orange County is through the ranks of the district attorney’s office. The roster of candidates seeking six-year terms in the March 7 election is no exception. Three candidates are deputy district attorneys. Several others have held that job in the past. One candidate is not just a former deputy but the onetime head of the office, former Dist. Atty. Mike Capizzi.

Some candidates got a leg up on their races in a time-honored if not exemplary way: A judge whispers to a friend his intention to retire and suggests that the lawyer consider running for the seat. The candidate canvasses the police unions, lawyers’ groups and other judges, seeking endorsements. By the time the retirement becomes public and a new candidate enters the race, the one with insider knowledge has a strong head start.

The most common route to the bench is appointment by the governor. The change from 16 years of Republican governors to Gray Davis last year provided hope for Democratic lawyers in Orange County.

But appointments are not guaranteed, and many attorneys wait in vain for years to get a gubernatorial nod. So when a vacancy opens up, the competition can be spirited.

For most Orange County residents, the candidates are unknown. Unless they wind up as jurors, defendants or plaintiffs, people have no contact with judges or those wanting to ascend to the bench. Judicial candidates find it difficult to get their message out, because it’s expensive to file a ballot statement, $11,150, on top of the $1,179 cost merely to get one’s name on the ballot. But it’s difficult to take seriously the bid for office of a candidate who does not file a ballot statement. True, much of it is boilerplate, but it is the main way for a potential judge to reach the voters. And spending the money does indicate a serious intent.

There are only a few candidates’ forums that include judges. Fortunately, legal ethics keep the races relatively free of the attacks that mar too many other races.

Several of this year’s candidates hold the job of commissioner. That means they do much of the same work as judges, though their title unfortunately is confusing to many voters. The commissioners are selected by other judges and earn less than the nearly $118,000 salary of a judge. But they gain valuable experience and provide a beneficial service to the county. Orange County currently has 33 commissioners and 108 judges.

It would be good in the years ahead if more attorneys experienced in civil practice were to seek either judicial appointments from the governor or election by voters. All prosecutors say they can get up to speed quickly on civil matters, and all are provided training before taking the bench. But lawyers who specialize in civil cases complain that the learning curve is steep for deputy district attorneys who become judges.

Some attorneys also expressed concern that the consolidation of the courts means the Municipal Court no longer serves as a training ground for judges, letting their colleagues see who is qualified to advance to the Superior Court, with more complex cases. But Orange County has abolished Municipal Courts and elevated judges there to Superior Court, as allowed by Proposition 220 in 1998. The consolidation of courts is expected to save money and eliminate duplication of staff.

After speaking with the candidates and those knowledgeable about the judicial process in the county, we are making the following recommendations:

Office 1: Marc Kelly. A deputy district attorney for more than a decade, Kelly has been an effective prosecutor in the county’s anti-gang program known as TARGET. He has made a special effort to help the victims of the criminals he prosecutes.

Office 6: John Conley. A deputy district attorney with 27 years experience in the county who was named the outstanding prosecutor of 1988 by fellow deputies throughout the state, he has extensive administrative experience as a supervisor in the district attorney’s office and teaches at Cal State Long Beach.

Office 7: Sheila Fell. A current court commissioner, Fell would bring wide experience in civil law to the bench and would expand the ranks of judges beyond former prosecutors. She has been a volunteer for the Family Violence Council and worked as a judicial monitor in Peer Court, where high school students act as jurors in the case of fellow students and recommend a sentence other than jail or a fine. The program has a good record of keeping juveniles out of future scrapes with the law.

Office 10: Gary Paer. A former deputy district attorney who has been a court commissioner for several years. Judges pick the lawyers they want to serve as commissioners, and those who chose Paer give him high marks.

Office 24: Mike Capizzi. Eminently qualified for a judgeship, Capizzi is certainly the best-known from his time as the county district attorney and his unsuccessful bid two years ago for the Republican nomination for state attorney general. He is a man of unquestioned integrity who braved the wrath of his party’s kingmakers to prosecute political corruption. Capizzi is paying the price, though, with the GOP establishment’s effort to defeat him in a nonpartisan contest. He let his supporters try unsuccessfully to force his opponent, a deputy district attorney, to use her married name on the ballot rather than her maiden name. But that lapse in judgment does not diminish the luster he showed as a prosecutor in the courtroom and when running the district attorney’s office.

Office 26: Fred Anderson. It’s rare for a sitting judge to be challenged. The incumbent H. Warren Siegel has earned enough of a reputation for being overbearing with attorneys that his judicial temperament is under scrutiny. Siegel says he simply warns lawyers they have to be prepared when they enter his courtroom and not seek delays of trials for flimsy reasons, but the perception of this appointed judge in the legal community appears otherwise. Lawyers also say he has been reversed on appeal more than other judges, but Siegel says his record on reversals is about average. We think there are enough questions about him to argue against an elected term. Of his two opponents, Anderson is the more experienced, handling many trials and arguments before appellate courts in the past 30 years. He can be expected to listen to both sides in a case, exercise a judicial temperament and decide cases fairly.

Office 30: Dan McNerney. A longtime deputy district attorney, McNerney has prosecuted crimes ranging from sexual violence to homicides. He agrees with the state Supreme Court decision allowing judges some latitude in “three strikes” cases and supports the law as it now stands.