As I wrote in Part I, which covered the major offices and in Part II, which covered the propositions, the general election is just about a week away, and that means it is time to go through the ballot to revisit how I should vote. I do this afresh each election, and I post my analysis here for you to review. If you disagree, let me know with a convincing reason why I should support the other side. But more importantly, I encourage you to do the same: Go through your sample ballot, where ever you are, and study the candidates and make an informed decision. Put some critical thought behind your vote. Don’t just vote a slate without thinking — on either side. Don’t just vote against the other guy; vote for the positions you like. This is your chance to make a difference. Most importantly, remember to vote. Many many many, and even many more, have given their lives so that you have the ability to vote. Respect them, and exercise your franchise. Even if you disagree with me.
On to Part III: The Judgeships. Often, it is asked why we vote on these — after all, no one knows any of the candidates. It often seems a waste of candidates money; a waste of ballot space; and it opens the judges up to bribes in the form of campaign contributions. We vote on judge because the electorate demanded it: they wanted to be able to throw out judges that they felt were soft on crime, or who ruled the way that didn’t like. In other words, they wanted judges to enforce their political positions, not necessarily the law. So, what do I look for in a judge? Simple:
- Strong qualifications from respected legal associations
- Absence of evidence of malfeasance or bias
- Evidence of strong ethics, and ideally, being governed by the law even if they personally disagree
Do they have to agree with me? No, they have to follow the law. Secondary considerations are encouraging the vision of a judicial body that reflects the makeup of society. We are judged by our peers, and that is more than just the jury. Judges require varied backgrounds to understand and interpret, and that is something not exclusive to white men and white women.
So, as they used to say, “Here come ‘de Judge”. Note that many of these offices are not races; they are confirmations of appointments.
Judicial – California Supreme Court
Note that all of these offices are yes/no confirmations.
Goodwin Liu. Confirmed to the court in 2011; previously Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). His primary areas of expertise are constitutional law, education law and policy, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Son of Taiwanese Immigrants. Had been nominated to the Federal Court of Appeals; withdrew his nomination after being blocked by Republicans. One article calls him “A Conservative’s worst nightmare“. Yet another article notes: “If Justice Goodwin Liu’s first nine months on the California Supreme Court prove anything, it’s how wrong U.S. Senate Republicans were in characterizing him as a “left-wing ideologue” when they blocked his confirmation to a seat on the Ninth Circuit. The federal judiciary’s loss is very much California’s gain, as Justice Liu has quickly emerged as a paragon of judicial restraint.” ABA: Unanimously well qualified.
- Conclusion: Yes
Mariano-Florentino Cuellar. From Stanford Law School — not as good as Berkeley or UCLA, but it’ll do. He teaches and writes primarily about administrative, criminal, and international law, and has additional interests in public organizations, legislation, public health law, and immigration and citizenship. He is the Director of Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow at the Institute, the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, and Professor (by courtesy) of Political Science. A member of the Stanford faculty since 2001, he has worked in two presidential administrations, served as Co-Director of Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, and has an extensive record of involvement in public service. A State Bar committee that evaluates judicial candidates gave Cuellar its highest rating, “exceptionally well qualified.”
- Conclusion: Yes
Kathyryn Mickle Werdegar. Appointed to the California Supreme Court by Governor Pete Wilson on May 3, 1994. Prior to her elevation to the Supreme Court, she served on the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. Started law studies at the University of California School of Law (Boalt Hall), where she was first in her class and the first woman to be elected editor-in-chief of the California Law Review. She completed her law studies at George Washington University, where she graduated first in her class. She received her B.A. (with honors) from the University of California at Berkeley. Political moderate. Couldn’t find a rating online, but couldn’t find anything negative either.
- Conclusion: Yes
Court of Appeal Justices
Note that all of these offices are yes/no confirmations.
Frances Rothschild. She grew up on a small family farm and worked her way through college and law school with the help of a scholarship and employment as a waitress, salesperson, and legal assistant. She graduated from UCLA, majoring in economics, and went on to UCLA Law School where she graduated with honors. Rated Qualified by LA County Bar Association.
- Conclusion: Yes
Brian M. Hoffstadt. A third-generation Southern Californian. He grew up in the eastern San Gabriel Valley, and attended public schools from kindergarten through law school. In 1992, he graduated from Cal Poly Pomona with a degree in business administration. Three years later, he graduated first in his class from UCLA School of Law. Published an article on countering the cyber-crime threat. Rated Qualified by LA County Bar Association.
- Conclusion: Yes
Lee Anne Edmon. Edmon received her B.A. from Bob Jones University and her J.D. from the University of Illinois, College of Law. Republicans don’t like her because they view her as a “judical activist”. Rated Qualified by the LA County Bar Association.
- Conclusion: Yes
Audrey B. Collins. Collins was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to the California Court of Appeal in 2014. She received an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. Collins was appointed by President Clinton as a United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California in 1994. She served as Chief Judge of the Central District from 2009 through September 2012. Justice Collins was born and raised near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Her family had a strong tradition of public service, which inspired her to seek a career in the law. Collins graduated from Howard University, where she was named Woman of the Year and elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She subsequently received a Masters of Arts in Government and Public Administration from American University in 1979. Granddaughter of a slave.
- Conclusion: Yes
Nora M. Manella. Manella was born in California, where she attended public schools before graduating from Wellesley College with high honors. She received her law degree from the University of Southern California, Order of the Coif, and was an editor of the Law Review. She served as legal counsel to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution in Washington, D.C. before joining O’Melveny & Myers, practicing complex civil litigation in Washington and Los Angeles. Hmmm, USC grad. Well, I guess if we can let Stanford in, we’ll let in any riff-raff. Subject of a couple of articles in the 1990s. One guy has a site calling her a scam judge, but it seems a personal vendetta. And, proving you’ll find anything on Google, rated #4 out of 5 on “bodacious babes of the bench”. More importantly, rated Qualified by the LA County Bar Association. Unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, after receiving an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission.
- Conclusion: Yes
Paul A. Turner. Graduated from Antelope Valley High School in 1965 and received his bachelor’s degree magna cum laude in political science from then California State College at Long Beach in June 1969. He graduated from the School of Law at the University of California at Los Angeles in December, 1972 after completing active duty training in the U.S. Army. Rated Qualified by the LA County Bar Association.
- Conclusion: Yes
Kenneth R. Yegan. B. A. University of California, Santa Barbara. J. D. University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Rated Qualified by LA County Bar Association. He was appointed by former Governor George Deukmejian and took his oath of office on December 27, 1990. No articles coming up that implied problems.
- Conclusion: Yes
Dennis M. Perluss. Perluss graduated “with great distinction” from Stanford University in 1970, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He received his law degree magna cum laude in 1973 from Harvard Law School where he was Articles Editor for the Harvard Law Review. Sigh. Stanford. But here’s an interesting nugget: Perluss is married to Rabbi Emily H. Feigenson, Chaplain at the Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles. He was also Deputy General Counsel of the Independent (“Christopher”) Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. He is rated as Qualified by the LA County Bar.
- Conclusion: Yes
Laurence D. Rubin. Rubin is a lifelong resident of Los Angeles, having graduated UCLA as an undergraduate (B.A. 1968) and law school (J.D. 1971). More interesting is the following: Since 2005, he has been a member of the California Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The Committee advises the Supreme Court on ethics matters and on amendments to the Code of Judicial Ethics. Effective January 2013, the Supreme Court amended the Code in a comprehensive manner based on recommendations of its Advisory Committee. Justice Rubin has also chaired the California Judges Association’s Committee on Judicial Ethics and served as the Association’s Vice President in 1996. In other words: This guy knows Judicial ethics. He is rated as Qualified by the LA County Bar.
- Conclusion: Yes
Madeleine I. Flier. Flier received her undergraduate degree from the University of California – Los Angeles in 1963, and earned her J.D. from the University of San Fernando Valley College of Law. There’s one site out there that accuses her of Judicial misconduct. I have not seen any posts that confirm those claims, so I believe they are outliers. Some view her as a Judicial activist. She is rated as Qualified by the LA County Bar. She did submit priorities to the Smart Voter website: (a) To preserve an impartial judiciary; (b)
To uphold the rule of law; and (c) To assure equal access to justice.
- Conclusion: Yes
Judge of the Superior Court
Note that these offices are runoffs.
Office No. 61
This is a runoff between Jacqueline H. Lewis and Dayan Mathai. Lewis received her undergraduate degree in 1986 from Loyola Marymount University and her law degree in 1990 from Boalt Hall at the University of California, Berkeley. Mathai graduated from Biola University before graduating from the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University in Washington, D.C. Lewis is rated as Exceptionally Well Qualified by the LA County Bar; Mathai is only Well Qualified. In the June primary, I went for Lewis. Lewis has loads of endorsements from judges, the Democratic establishment, and unions. Mathai has endorsements from more Republican officials, law enforcement, and fewer judges. I’m basing the decision on three factors: the exceptionally well qualified rating, the LMU and UC Berkeley degrees, and the Times endorsement.
- Conclusion: Jacqueline H. Lewis
Office No. 87.
This is a runoff between Andrew M. Stein and Tom Griego. Stein received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from the State University of New York in 1975; and his his law degree from the University of San Diego, School of Law in 1978. Griego earned a B.A in Political Science in 1980 from UCLA; a Master of Science in Public Administration in 1984 from CSULA; and a J.D. in 1990 from Whittier Law School. Neither started out as lawyers, it appears. Both are rated as Not Qualified by the LA County Bar Association. The LA Times is for Stein, noting Griego lacks the experience and the mastery of the courtroom needed in a Superior Court judge. Stein more than 30 years representing criminal defendants ranging from gang members to police officers. He has a reputation for being contentious, perhaps as a byproduct of vigorous advocacy that sometimes bends the unwritten rules of courtroom decorum. They feel that, as a criminal defense lawyer, Stein would bring some diversity of background to a bench on which prosecutors are well represented. Stein also has a large number of endorsements. Greigo, whose website is on Fundly (which says a lot) lists no endorsers. Based on the “Not Qualified”, I’d like to vote “no” on both, but since I can’t:
- Conclusion: Andrew M. Stein
And that does it. My analysis of the ballot. See you in 2015 for whatever elections we have then.
