Thursday, September 11, 2008
Page 4
PERSPECTIVES (Column)
Three History-Making Women Judicial Officers of L.A. Superior Court Are Now Joined by a Fourth
By ROGER M. GRACE
A milestone that should have been arrived at long ago was
reached yesterday with the election of the first woman assistant
presiding
judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. If tradition is followed, Lee Edmon,
after two years of service as second-in-command, will become the court’s leader
in 2011—the year that will mark 100 years from the time it became lawful for a
woman to be a judge in California.
The court’s history goes back to Dec. 10, 1879. That’s when Ygnacio Sepúlveda became its first judge. He and former Los Angeles County District Attorney Volney Howard had both been elected Nov. 1, but Howard was not sworn in until eight days after Sepúlveda, making him the court’s second judge.
No woman could have assumed the office then. Although California did have a female attorney in 1879—Clara Shortridge Foltz, admitted to practice the previous year—women could neither hold office nor vote until the state Constitution was amended by popular vote on Oct. 10, 1911.
The Los Angeles Times’ election day edition contains an editorial cautioning: “Woman suffrage should be defeated because it tends to unsex society and destroy the home and puts a burden on women which most of them do not want.” Passage of the amendment did not “unsex society” nor break up homes…and women, in droves, proceeded immediately to register to vote. California was only the sixth state to extend suffrage to women in all elections. It was not until 1920 that the 19th Amendment was passed, extending the right to vote to women nationally.
Today, in a column of uncommon length, I’ll take a look at three trailblazers who served on the Los Angeles Superior Court.
ORFA JEAN SHONTZ was the first woman to fill the role of a
judicial officer of the Los Angeles Superior Court. She was appointed on Oct.
14, 1915, as the county’s first Juvenile Court referee, selected by the judge
presiding over that court. Admitted to practice in January, 1913, she had
served as private secretary for two years to the court’s probate judge, James
Rives, a former district attorney.
Estelle B. Freedman in her 1996 book, “Maternal Justice: Miriam Van Waters and the Female Reform Tradition,” says of Shontz:
“Orfa had a striking, serious face. According to one woman reporter, she was ‘rather slightly built, fair-haired and gray-eyed, quiet in manner and speech, to a marked degree womanly.’ ”
An article in the October, 1916 issue of the national lawyers’ magazine “Case and Comment,” by attorney S.M. Davis of Orange County, notes:
“In organizing the court in which Miss Shontz presides, the judge, clerk, reporter and bailiff are all women, and in that court men have no part. This novel tribunal has been constantly in session since November, 1915, and has tried juvenile cases, only. The scope of the court includes all cases in which girls in their minority are defendants, and cases where boys up to the age of nine years are concerned.”
A June, 1921 report of the U.S. Department of Labor says:
“California—in counties of the first class, that is to say, Los Angeles—and New Mexico are the only States that specifically provide by law for the appointment of a woman referee to hear cases of girls and young boys brought before the court. The referee has the usual power of referees in chancery cases, hears the testimony of witnesses, and certifies to the judge of the juvenile court findings upon the case, together with recommendation as to the judgment or order to be made.
“…[I]f the number of cases appealed is a test, the plan has been successful for during the four and a half years when Orfa Jean Shontz, the first woman referee to be appointed, heard these cases, over 6,000 matters were before the court, and but one appeal was taken from her findings and recommendations—and in that case her finding was upheld.”
In 1918, Shontz entered a contest for election to this county’s Superior Court. A July 7 Times column by the anonymous “Watchman” observes that Shontz “is said to be the first woman in the United States to have nerve enough to run for that high office.”
A July 14 Times article by staff writer Alma Wittaker, appearing on the women’s page, begins:
“Feminine pioneering in the realms sacred to masculinity teems with adventure, reeks of daring, and lays one open to fearful dissection and public analysis. Hence the announced candidacy of Miss Orfa Jean Shontz for the Superior Court bench has created no end of a sensation, not only in local judicial circles, where her masculine confreres see their sacred citadel under attack, but among the women, who are enthralled by her courage.”
Wittaker’s article says that if elected, Shontz would become “the first woman judge in the United States.” Some would dispute that. Esther Morris is generally attributed with having been the first woman judge in the nation, decades earlier. However, Morris did not serve on a court of record, and was a layperson. She was a city judge (justice of the peace) in South Pass, Wyoming, appointed on Feb. 17, 1870, to fill a vacancy. For less than nine months, she held court there, in a log cabin.
It does appear that if Shontz had won the election, she would have become the first woman in the United States to serve as a judge of a court of record, and, at that, a court of general jurisdiction. But she didn’t win, being eliminated in the primary (under a system—one that should be considered anew—in which all judicial candidates, for multiple slots, competed in a single race).
Shontz was appointed Los Angeles city clerk in 1920; was elected, as a Democrat, to the state Board of Equalization in 1934; and was appointed to the Los Angeles Municipal Court on Dec. 13, 1935 by Republican Gov. Frank Merriam. She did not seek reelection in 1947. (In case you were wondering why there would have been a judicial election in an off year: municipal court elections were then conducted in conjunction with balloting for city offices.)
GEORGIA BULLOCK, appointed by Gov. James Rolph on Aug. 14, 1931, became the first female judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court—in fact, the first female Superior Court judge in the state.
She was already the first woman judge in California—restricting the term “judge” to full-fledged judges (as opposed to subordinate judicial officers) of courts of record. Bullock attained the distinction on Feb. 1, 1926, the day the Los Angeles Municipal Court commenced operations. That court, W.W. Robinson explains in “Lawyers of Los Angeles,” “superseded the Police Court of Los Angeles, the Justice Court of Los Angeles Township, and, in addition, acceded to a large portion of the jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Superior Court.” Bullock, as a Police Court judge since Jan. 5, 1925, automatically became a member of the Municipal Court, just as judges of the Municipal Court were transformed into Superior Court upon unification in 2000.
Well, it was almost an automatic transition. One Police Court judge was denied membership on the newly established Long Beach Municipal Court. The state Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 1925 pointed to the provision in the Constitution requiring that judges of municipal courts, where established, have been admitted to practice before the state Supreme Court for at least five years. Bullock easily met the qualification, having been admitted in January, 1913.
(If the term “judge” is used, loosely, as a synonym for “jurist,” it’s difficult to say what woman was first. One contender would be Miriam Rains, appointed in 1915 by the El Cajon City Council as a police magistrate.)
When Bullock began her service as a judge of the
Police Court, there was nationwide interest. She was thought to be the only
woman in the nation holding such a position. (Probably she was, but since this
was a municipal post, not requiring legal training, there possibly were women
in remote burghs holding like posts without wide notice.)
A United Press dispatch, datelined Los Angeles, reports:
“Mrs. Georgia Bullock, bobbed hair, attractive and still on the sunny side of 40, today took over one department of the local police court.
“Before Judge Bullock will come the city’s, erring women and girls, and in judging them she will use experience gained in eleven years practice as an attorney in local courts.
“ ‘My program will be as constructive as possible,’ she said. “As long as a girl has a chance in the world and is not stuck too deep in the mire, she deserves consideration from those in a position to aid her.
“‘I would rather keep one good girl out of jail than send ten bad ones behind the bars.’ ”
There had also been press attention back in 1922 when Bullock, a general practitioner, took the bench as a Superior Court judge pro tem, with the bailiff bellowing, “Her honor, the judge—hats off!”
Even before that, Bullock gained judicial experience. The Dec 30, 1924 edition of the Times, reporting on the Board of Supervisors’ unanimous selection of Bullock as the new Police Court judge, recites:
“From 1914 to 1916 she acted as adviser in the women’s division of the Police Court, sitting on the bench with Judge Thomas D. White three days a week and serving without pay.”
That seems to be somewhat akin to the system in the State of Vermont and in Europe of “side judges,” one on each side of the judge, providing advice…though, unlike Bullock, they are generally nonlawyers.
Later, as a municipal court judge, Bullock sat on the Superior Court from April 23-June 30, 1928, under assignment by the Judicial Council.
While on the Municipal Court, she had more than a normal amount of press coverage. For example, there was a feature story on her syndicated nationally in late February 1928. Here’s a portion reflecting a difficulty faced then….
“Women offenders against the law are glad to appear before a woman judge,” she says. “Though they have a right to ask to be heard in other courts, they seldom ever, exercise it.”
But—Judge Bullock has her troubles teaching women offenders how to address “Her Honor.”
“The hardest job of my three years on the bench has been to persuade women prisoners that ‘Dearie’ is not the correct way to address the court,” she says.
“I correct them again and again but they just cannot seem to help getting familiar and out comes the ‘Dearie’ again.”
The feature includes this cartoon:
The Times’ issue of April 20, 1928 quotes Bullock as predicting the broadcasting of trials—on radio, of course. The article attributes to her the observation that “[s]uch a thing would not detract from the dignity of a court,” adding: “The courts belong to the people and they should all be allowed to hear what is going on.”
Bullock obviously had energy, commitment, moxie. Treatment of her by the press was favorable. The small but feisty and influential Women Lawyers Club of Los Angeles, of which she was a founder, promoted her candidacy. But she overestimated her draw in 1928 when she ran for a judgeship on the upper trial bench against an incumbent, William C. Doran, and misgauged Doran’s vulnerability.
Bullock led the field of three candidates in the Aug. 28 primary, and headed for a face-off on Nov. 6.
A Nov. 2 editorial in the Times says:
“Mrs. Bullock’s candidacy is backed by several elements in the community. Some of them represent the highest type of our citizenship. Others are representatives of groups which do not seek ability in public officials, who do not want honesty, courage, independence in public office.”
It was the inspiration of the second group that brought out the opposition to Doran’s candidacy. The fight on Doran started among a group of lawyers and defendants in the trial of those accused of wrecking the Julian oil corporation. The fight began while those trials were in progress and Mrs. Bullock was not the first person approached by those seeking vengeance upon a jurist they could not control,
After others had refused to serve the purposes of the clique that sought secret reprisal upon Judge Doran, however, she consented, with much confessed misgiving, to make race. It is immaterial, so far as this contest is concerned, whether she knew why she was promised financial assistance and political support in such a fight.
Noteworthy is that the Times editorial does not question Bullock’s capacity as a jurist. It says that “[h]er fitness for a promotion to a higher court is not a factor.” And it shouldn’t have been. While I don’t know what editorial stance on that race this newspaper, in the form of the Veteran-Enterprise, took in 1928, we would, if assessing that contest today, go for the incumbent, given the lack of any showing of incompetence on his part.
A Daily News endorsement of Doran declares that “[t]o defeat him at the election Tuesday would be to put the stamp of approval upon the tactics of the corrupt ring of gangsters who, by open bootlegging, open gambling, and open traffic in human flesh, sought to defy the courts and who now seek to get control of the machinery of government”—but contains no disparagement of Bullock.
Indeed, the Los Angeles Express—hardly known for timidity, took no sides in the race. A Nov. 5 editorial says:
“In the contest for judge of the superior court the Express makes no recommendation between Judge Doran, incumbent, and Judge Georgia Bullock of the municipal court. Judge Doran has made an excellent record as judge in the position he now occupies and Judge Bullock has made an excellent record on the municipal bench.”
If today’s Los Angeles County Bar Assn. ratings committee were to look at the contestants, I suspect both would be termed “exceptionally well qualified.”
It was Doran, by the way, who brought about the downfall of Asa Keyes, a crooked district attorney in this county. As recounted here before, after defendants in the Julian Oil Corporation stock swindle case were acquitted, Doran on May 28, 1928, released a statement attributing the outcome to Keyes’ failure to put on a meaningful prosecution. The DA was later convicted of throwing the match in exchange for a bribe.
Doran (who latter became a member of the Court of Appeal) prevailed at the polls over Bullock by a vote of nearly 2-1.
That loss cannot be said to have been reflective of sexism. On the other hand, a 1932 judicial-election plebiscite of the Los Angeles Bar Assn. undoubtedly did reek of sexism. Although Bullock—the first female member of that association—was generally well regarded as a judge, she received only 289 votes from members, while her chief opponent, among three male challengers, collected 1,112 ballots (with the other two bagging less than 100 each).
This brings to mind the shameless denigration of Court of Appeal Justice Mildred L. Lillie in 1971 by the American Bar Assn.’s Judiciary Committee which branded her, by a vote of 11-1, “not qualified” for the U.S. Supreme Court, effectively killing the appointment of her that President Richard Nixon had intended to make. By no objective standards was she “not qualified” for any judicial post. Sexism endured within the legal community.
It was not so rampant among the general public, however. Despite the Los Angeles Bar Association’s 1932 straw poll, Bullock was reelected. She remained at her post until she called it quits in 1955.
Two organizations Bullock co-founded still exist, though amalgamated with other groups. She and four other students at the USC Law School in 1911 formed Phi Delta Delta, a women’s legal fraternity; chapters were established nationally; in 1972, it merged into Phi Alpha Delta. The Women Lawyers’ Club—which she, Shontz, and three others launched in 1918, merged with a like organization in 1964, becoming the Women Lawyers Assn. of Los Angeles.
KATHLEEN PARKER was the first woman elected to the Los Angeles Superior Court. That took place in 1962.
Parker, a Los Angeles Municipal Court judge since her appointment by Gov. Goodwin J. Knight in 1957, competed in the June 6 primary with 14 males, coming in first. That was no political feat; even an incompetent lower-court jurist—which most certainly she was not—would have led in a race so constituted. There were, of course, those who would have voted for her simply because she was a woman with no inkling as to her abilities.
Her run-off was to be with another judge of her
court, Leo 
Freund. Others in the race in the primary who would later ascend to
the Superior Court were James Tante, Leopoldo Sanchez, and Glenn Pfau.
Art Ryon’s June 11 Times column contains this lead item:
“Everybody’s got a gimmick!
“Just before the elections, Asst. Chief Lathon Brewer of the County Fire Dept. was lunching at the Golden Pagoda. He cracked a fortune cookie. Instead of some sage Chinese advice, the paper inside read: ‘Elect Kathleen Parker Superior Court.’ ”
A Jan. 23, 1972 column in the Long Beach Independent Press-Telegram explains how Parker’s campaign fortune cookie came to be served: “Her campaign workers donated the cookies to Chinese restaurants in Los Angeles, and the pluralities poured in like soy sauce on chow mein.” (I’m glad I didn’t write that.)
Incredibly, it took more than half a century from the time that women became eligible to hold offices and the election of a woman to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Parker was the fourth female member of that court. Coming before her, aside from Bullock, were Lillie (on the Court of Appeal by the time Parker arrived) and Shirley Hufstedler (later a judge of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then U.S. secretary of education).
I viewed Parker’s performance on the bench both from the spectators’ gallery and from behind the counsel table. In 1972, as a reporter for the Herald-Examiner, I covered the trial in her courtroom of a Black Panther, Elmer “Geronimo” Pratt, accused of a slaying on a Santa Monica public tennis court. A few months later, I was handling the defense of a man on trial for second degree murder, and she was the judge.
And an impressive judge she was.
The MetNews named her “person of the year” in 1986. In connection with that, an editorial on Dec. 31, 1986 begins:
How to be a great trial judge:
Be like Kathleen Parker.
Judge Parker is unmistakably in control of proceedings in her courtroom – without having to snarl or bellow. Respect is not something she insists be accorded her; rather, by virtue of her knowledge, accomplishment, bearing, and fairness, it naturally flows to her.
There is no question but that Judge Parker is an authority on criminal law, and a master at running a courtroom.
Her manner is calm and self assured; no doubt stemming from her knowledge that she knows what she’s doing. There is a like recognition on the part of lawyers appearing before her.
Judge Parker neither cracks a whip nor cracks quips. Her courtroom is neither a Star chamber nor a circus. It’s a place where justice is dispensed. Both the People and the defense get full attention to their positions by a judge who is truly impartial and knows the law.
Despite the many years of her judicial service and the many tough calls she has made in well-publicized cases, Kathleen Parker is uncontroversial.
In looking over comments on her in a 1983 MetNews profile and in our Dec. 31, 1986 “Person of the Year“ supplement, words I keep seeing are “classy” and “dignified.”
Both words were used by Evelle J. Younger, who was former state attorney general and former Los Angeles district attorney. He’s quoted in the 1986 supplement as terming Parker a “very classy lady” and “very competent,” going on to say:
“I’ve never known her to lose her cool. She’s dignified, and she inspires dignity in return.”
Wilbur Littlefield, who was the county’s public defender, is quoted there as calling her a “wonderful person all around,” noting that his deputies “always regarded it as a choice assignment to work in her court.”
This comment by him appears:
“She’s not a harsh sentencer, but no one’s going to put anything over on her. She’s been around long enough that she’s heard all the stories, but at the same time, she recognizes human frailty, and she’s not mean or vicious.”
A successor to Younger as DA was John Van de Kamp, who says in an e-mail that he recalls “going to a party put on by a renowned defense attorney” at a movie studio “just after I was appointed DA—only to see Judge Parker make a grand entrance on the back of an elephant.” The former attorney general and recent State Bar president remarks: “She clearly was a good sport and possessed a sense of humor.”
Many others also recall that event. More 1,000
attended—and a good number were turned away—to honor Parker on the occasion of
her supposed “retirement” from the court—a retirement in form, only, since she
was to remain on the court, on assignment, for another 16 years. Held Oct. 17,
1975, on a sound stage at Warner Brothers’ Burbank Studios, there was a circus
theme to the celebration. The cost of admission to this extravaganza was a mere
$12.50.
The elephant ride says much about Parker. This judge who was dignity personified on the bench was, at the same time, not stuck up and had not only a sense of humor, but an impish one. (For years, she had a real-looking plastic marijuana plant in her chambers.)
Attorney Marvin Part, who organized the event and is now retired, is quoted in the 1986 profile as saying of the gala:
“Every woman there got a stuffed animal. We had search lights, an orchestra. Kay Parker came up in a limousine. We had a big bar, a catered dinner, a magician. But I decided we needed a big splash ending.
“Kay’s a prim and proper lady, but a tremendous sport—so I asked her, ‘How about if you ride up on an elephant?’ And she didn’t hesitate—she said, ‘Sure.’ ”
When this newspaper paid tribute to Parker in 1986 as “person of the year” in connection with her 30th year on the bench, the Los Angeles Superior Court’s assistant presiding judge was Jack Goertzen, later a member of the Court of Appeal. Here’s his recitation:
“When I looked up and saw Judge Parker sitting on the back of that elephant, maintaining the same sense of decorum and presence sitting on an elephant that she maintained in her courtroom throughout her legal career, I knew then as I know now—Judge Parker is a class act.”
It was a shame that Parker was not elevated to the Court of Appeal. But she was a Republican; the governor from 1959-67 was Democrat Pat Brown. His only female appointee was Hufstedler (1966), a Democrat.
Parker is quoted in the 1986 profile as saying: “I enjoy trial work more than appellate work, even though I did it for 9½ years [as a research attorney]. But I thought if an elevation to the appeals court was offered, I would certainly take it.
“It wasn’t, and then after awhile I became too old to be considered.”
Born July 22, 1905, she was 61 by the time Republican Ronald Reagan became governor.
She retired at age 70, when maximum pension benefits accrued, but kept working. The 1983 profile quotes her as saying:
“I wasn’t ready to retire. I’m still not ready to retire, although there are some mornings, I must confess, when the alarm goes off and I wonder why I’m doing this.”
Then the time came in 1991 when she would come to work, and no cases were sent to her. Well, OK, she wasn’t without work to do. She had been assigned by the Supreme Court to plough through 50 volumes of testimony and make findings in a case in which the defendant had been sentenced to death.
It was disconcerting, however, for her to find other judges in her chambers, on occasion.
Then she found out what had happened. The presiding judge no longer desired her services.
A MetNews story of Jan. 7, 1992 reports:
A member of the Los Angeles Superior Court yesterday lambasted the court’s presiding judge, Ricardo Torres, for his causing veteran jurist Kathleen Parker to be dropped from the roster of assigned retired judges without personally discussing the matter with her.
Judge Nancy Brown told the MetNews that Parker’s courtroom clerk was instructed by Torres, in the presence of court Clerk/Executive Officer James Dempsey, to inform Parker that her assignment has not been renewed.
Parker, 86, retired from the court in 1975 after 12 years on the Superior Court and six on the Los Angeles Municipal Court. She sat continuously on assignments which were made each 90 days, first by Chief Justice Rose Bird, then by her successor, Malcolm Lucas.
But Torres reportedly did not request Lucas to recommission Parker when her latest assignment expired Oct. 31.
“The fact is that Judge Torres has never advised Judge Parker as to what was going on” concerning her status with the court, Brown reported.
“He has never advised her personally that he did not wish to renew her assignment.”
For Torres to have the courtroom clerk break the news to Parker was “demeaning,” Brown said, adding;
“A modicum of respect and dignity would require that he personally at least talk with her.”
Parker’s friend and colleague continued:
“I was appalled and shocked at a person with her tenure on the court being treated in such manner.”
Torres did not return a call to his office yesterday seeking comment.
The article relates Brown’s comment that the “final blow” was Parker’s receipt in the mail on Jan. 4, 1992, of a notice sent to her home advising that as of Jan. 1, she would be obliged to pay $7.50 per day to park in a county lot. The only pay Parker was getting was the difference between her pension and what a referee would be paid.
Parker is quoted as saying: “I think that’s unreasonable, frankly,” and disclosing that she was considering telling the Supreme Court to “find somebody else to finish the case.” And that’s what she did.
At the Jan. 10 “Person of the Year” Dinner honoring another early woman jurist, Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Vaino Spencer, a surprised Parker was asked to come to the podium. She received a tumultuous standing ovation. Waiters came out with champagne, and those assembled drank a toast to her.
She spoke briefly, and her remarks were gracious.
My wife and I were privileged to know her. I delivered one of the eulogies at her funeral.
A more outstanding jurist there could not be, and it is doubtful there has been a more beloved one in the county’s history.
The four chief women pioneers of the Los Angeles Superior Court have been Orfa Jean Shontz, its first judicial officer; Georgia Bullock, its first judge; Kathleen Parker, its first elected judge; and Lee Edmon, its first assistant presiding judge-elect—and presumptively, its 2011 and 2012 presiding judge.
What is to be hoped for is the day when there will no longer be “firsts” for women judges, all that is attainable having been attained, and when the phrase “women judges” will no longer be heard, judges being judges with no modification relating to gender being seen as relevant.
That day not yet having been reached, Edmon’s attainment is worthy of celebration.
Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company