Impartiality of the Judiciary

As recently as last month, Tom Dunn was a former prosecutor working as a research attorney in the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana. Because of an unfortunate decision made during his runoff election for Superior Court with the eventual winner, Sheila Fell, Dunn ended up losing more than the election. It had to be a tough civics lesson for him, and one that has reaffirmed some basic principles about the need for a judiciary that is above politics.

Every candidate bears responsibility for choices made in a campaign. This election season at the City Council level in Orange County produced some strong accusations. These are byproducts of a system in which local candidates increasingly rely on mailers to score points against opponents.

Superior Court judges in Orange County are elected, but because judges are held to an especially high standard, the campaign trail is full of potential potholes in competitive races. What happened to Dunn is a cautionary tale for judicial candidates in the future, and indeed, for those who tried to help his cause.

Dunn lost not only the election but his job. He resigned after justices determined that he overstated his position with the appeals court and that he had misled voters about its role. His problems arose from a mailer paid for by the Assn. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, which had been unhappy with Fell over several rulings.

The association was concerned that a particular ruling might undermine the investigation in a case in which, while no arrest had been made, the confidentially of the police file might bear on future action. In their zeal to punish Fell, the sheriff’s deputies ended up working hard for Dunn, which certainly was their prerogative.

But the justices who employed Dunn believed that the mailing created the wrong impression that the candidate had worked to make sure judges were tough on violent felons.

This brought a strong response from Chief Justice David G. Sills, who wrote to the Superior Court that no justices had delegated decision-making to staff. He expressed concern about an impression that justices might be biased.

The justices made an important point that they are charged with looking at the big picture, and with doing so in a fair and impartial way.

That’s a lesson worth remembering by all who take part in the judicial races.