Summary of Recommendations in Judicial Races

Monday, November 4, 2006

Page 6

EDITORIAL:

Summary of Recommendations in Judicial Races

Bob Henry
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 8

Our choice in the primary was Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Alan Friedenthal. He came in third, no doubt a refection of the relative weakness of his ballot designation. As between Deputy Attorney General Bob Henry and Deputy Los Angeles City Attorney Deborah Sanchez, we favor Henry in light of his superior experience and his temperament.

Daviann L. Mitchell
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 18

There is no question as to which is the better candidate in this race. Deputy District Attorney Mitchell is an able lawyer, ready for a judgeship. Workers Compensation Judge John Gutierrez, in his third bid for election to the Superior Court, is aspiring to an office that, by virtue of his meager knowledge outside the realm of workers compensation, is beyond his means to handle. It’s like a canary wanting to be an eagle. We strongly support Mitchell.

Hayden Zacky
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 102

Zacky, a deputy district attorney, has what it takes to be a judge. His rival, private practitioner George C. Montgomery, has what it takes to be a used car salesman or a con artist. We concur in the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s rating of Zacky as “well qualified” and his opponent as “not qualified.” We urge that ballots be cast for Zacky.

Beyond what happens in tomorrow’s election, we believe that consequences should be felt by Montgomery in the future based on his campaign conduct. In both the primary and the general election, he has lied under penalty of perjury as to what his principal profession, occupation, or vocation has been in the past year’s period. In the primary, he claimed to be a “teacher,” flimsily premising that on his occasional rendering of advice to young lawyers; in the general election, he purported to be a “Criminal Civil Attorney” notwithstanding that he has not handled a criminal case in decades. We believe the State Bar of California would be derelict if it did not impose public discipline based on his violation of Rule 1-700 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by misrepresenting his qualifications. And we urge the District Attorney’s Office to consider whether misstatements under penalty of perjury warrant a prosecutorial response.

David W. Stuart
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 144

Stuart, a deputy district attorney, is exceptionally bright, as is his opponent, Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney Janis Levart Barquist. We find regrettable that Barquist has staged a politically partisan campaign, seeking to rally Democrats behind her. Stuart is also a Democrat, but that’s information he supplies only if asked. We believe Stuart has a better sense of judicial responsibility, has greater humility, and possesses more mature judgment.

YES on Joyce Kennard
California Supreme Court

Two justices of the California Supreme Court and 18 justices of the Second District Court of Appeal will face voters tomorrow in retention elections. None face serious opposition and it would be pointless to make note of the few Court of Appeal justices we believe do not warrant continuation in office.

We single out Kennard simply because she is the only jurist on the ballot in this region who has drawn any organized opposition. (A Court of Appeal justice in another district has also been opposed.) Opposition to Kennard is based on a knee-jerk reaction to her concurrence in a single opinion 10 years ago.

Even those who do not bother to vote on the other appellate court candidates should take just a moment to indicate approval of Kennard. She is a brilliant jurist with extraordinary reasoning skills and the ability to express herself with clarity and persuasiveness. She deserves a “yes” vote.