Metropolitan News-Enterprise


Thursday, May 12, 2022


Page 9


Candidate McKay Is Aptly Described as ‘Clueless Blunderer’


By Judge X


(The writer is a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The METNEWS anticipates being favored by future contributions from this jurist, who writes under a pseudonym in order to have latitude in providing discussions on controversial matters. Other judges are encouraged to provide views anonymously on topics on which they would hesitate to comment if their identities were known; absolute confidentiality will be maintained.)


Administrative Law Judge Klint McKay is likely hoping that his third attempt to become elected to the Los Angeles Superior Court will be strengthened by the old adage, “third time is the charm.” That is probably the only thing in McKay’s favor as he stumbles along in the race for Office No. 118. Once quite accurately described by the METNEWS as “a clueless blunderer, (Oct. 14, 2020, Page 8) it would seem that McKay is running true to form.

McKay first ran in 2018 having, perhaps, recklessly decided to run against newly appointed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kristin Escalante. The logic behind McKay’s decision to challenge a sitting judge rather than run for an open seat would ordinarily defy belief (in essence, McKay simply did not know how to run for an open seat), however, in McKay’s case it is quite understandable; he is indeed a clueless blunderer.

One might imagine that McKay would have wanted to withdraw his ill-conceived candidacy immediately, discretely, without fuss, however, rather than admit a mea culpa, McKay instead doubled down in what at best could be described as a misguided attempt to justify his challenge to Judge Escalante on Feb. 14, 2018, telling the METNEWS, “I think that we’d both be equally qualified, so far as I can tell. I don’t know her at all,” and “Right now, as I sit here, I have no indication that she’s not a good judge.”

Ultimately, McKay was persuaded, apparently with some considerable effort, to withdraw his candidacy. His ignorance of California’s election law couple with his persistence in his wholly unjustifiable challenge to Judge Escalante, gives pause as to whether “clueless blunderer” was too mild an appellation.

McKay lived up to his reputation in his failed 2020 campaign, claiming on his campaign website that “The opportunity to do that is my primary motivation for seeking appointment as a Superior Court Judge,” (emphasis added) the clueless blunderer (buffoon?) now demonstrating either his inability to distinguish a judicial appointment from the electoral process, or the failure of his prior application for a gubernatorial appointment.

McKay compounded his ignorance or willful blindness of election law by attempting to use a ballot title that did not disclose his employer in violation of California Elections Code §13107(b)(3)(D). A protest to the L.A. County Registrar/Recorder resulted in his blunder being rectified.

As for McKay’s current campaign, one might reasonably have expected that having made clueless blunders in two failed campaigns, McKay would be the richer for the experience and has learned from his mistakes in preparation for his third attempt. That, however, does not appear to be the case.

McKay’s ballot title again had to be rectified by the L.A. County Registrar/Recorder. That McKay still has some confusion as to how to describe his occupation in compliance with election law is troubling.

Equally troubling is how McKay failed to disclose his employment when he contributed $10,000 to his 2022 campaign. According to the Fair Political Practices Commission form F497 filed by McKay, he described his occupation as “Attorney” and his employment as “Klint James McKay Attorney at Law.” One can only begin to imagine the contorted logic behind McKay’s failure to comply with FPPC regulations in this regard.

McKay’s track record as a clueless blunderer really should give voters reason to question his ability to understand the law he is expected to uphold. Will it be “third time’s the charm” for McKay, or perhaps more likely, “three strikes and you’re out”? Voters will decide; in the meantime, others hold their breath.


Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company