Columnist Is Right: Kline Should Resign

Re “Why Kline Should Resign,” Commentary, May 5:

Stuart P. Jasper’s opinion piece suggested that Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald C. Kline should resign. Jasper is right, but the Orange County Bar Assn. missed an opportunity to inform and serve the public before the March primary election.

As Jasper explained, the bar association’s Judiciary Committee evaluates judicial applicants whom the governor sends for rating. The Judiciary Committee also evaluates candidates in contested races. Before the March election, the committee evaluated candidates in every race but one--the race for Kline’s seat. By not rating Kline or any of the write-in challengers vying for his post, the committee failed to serve the public.

Even in a race that becomes relatively notorious, the public relies on the local bar association for information on candidates. Jasper so much as concedes this when he comments that “the write-in process ... was clumsy.... Voters didn’t get adequate information.” Of course they didn’t, because the bar association didn’t do its job.

Judges are required to adhere to the California Code of Judicial Ethics. Canon 2 of that code states that “a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The commentary to this canon states that “public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.”

As Jasper noted, “being indicted for pedophilia-related charges has destroyed public trust in Kline’s ability to be fair and impartial.” At a minimum, Kline’s situation imposed on the committee a duty to survey bar association members with regard to his reputation for integrity and qualifications--as was done for other candidates.

The issue is not Kline’s innocence or guilt, but his fitness to be reelected to his judicial office, an entirely different and far more exacting standard. By blurring the two, the committee failed to serve the public. Judiciary committee members always have been diligent in evaluating potential appointments and candidates for the judiciary. They would have served Orange County even more diligently by ensuring that the public was well informed before the March primary ballot.

Mario W. Mainero Jr.

Professor of Law

Whittier Law School

*

Stuart Jasper is right on the mark in calling for Judge Kline’s resignation--something I have been seeking for almost six months. But his trashing of all write-in candidates (including a former Superior Court judge) is off base, and his attack on our democratic system of electing judges is indefensible. It’s his broadside against the intelligence of Orange County voters, however, that’s alarming. No doubt Jasper would rather select the next president by committee instead of the clumsy--as he calls it--election process our forefathers rightly envisioned and our military protects.

Kline would have been elected automatically--his name not even appearing on the March ballot--except that several write-in candidates collected enough signatures to force Kline onto the ballot. More than 250,000 Orange County voters took the time and trouble to write the name of a qualified candidate on their ballot. The fact that Kline was rejected by a 2-1 margin is a tribute to those interested voters.

Jasper’s notion that “voters didn’t get adequate information” about the write-in candidates amazes me. Can you think of a race in recent memory that drew more media attention? Crisscrossing Orange County, the write-in candidates collectively addressed tens of thousands of voters at dozens of meetings. Most voters knew about Kline. Instead, they wanted to learn more about the write-in candidates, our temperament for the bench and our qualifications for office. I know because I was there.

Write-in candidates presented their credentials and experience to voters through television and radio talk shows, newspaper reports, mailers and good old-fashioned rallies. The people listened and responded. More than 130,000 wrote in my name, giving me the privilege of appearing on the November ballot.

Write-in campaigns are tough to win. But they serve as a time-honored safety valve when voters are faced with an unacceptable choice. Far from being awkward--as Jasper claims--a successful write-in campaign is a swift way to block the election of an unacceptable candidate--exactly what happened to Kline. Contrary to Jasper’s view, previous write-in candidates have served us well. Many will remember 20 years ago when former U.S. Rep. Ron Packard was elected through the write-in process.

It troubles me that Jasper, a member of my own profession, would suggest people qualified to sit on a jury in judgment of others are too dumb to weigh the qualifications of judicial candidates.

Most lawyers do not share Jasper’s dim view of voter intelligence. Four other hotly contested judicial races were held in the March primary and two incredibly skilled and dedicated lawyers, Lance Jensen and Kimberly Menninger, were elected to Superior Court seats. Why on earth would anyone think the appointment process would have done a better job than the voters in electing them?

Since we have never met, I have no idea why Jasper thinks the governor would select a better judicial candidate than the voters did in March. I entered the primary, won the write-in race against Kline and will be on the November ballot. The notion that voters should not participate in selecting judicial candidates, especially in this situation, is both wrong and dangerous.

By the way, it’s curious why Jasper is so keen on evaluating judicial candidates by various committees for appointment by the governor. You see, Kline was appointed.

John Adams

Dana Point