Page 8
EDITORIAL
Five Endorsed for Superior Court Open Seats
In the primary, we endorsed Deputy District Attorneys Jacob Lee, Renee Rose, Sharon Ransom, and Steven Yee Mac and Deputy County Counsel Tracey Blount for Los Angeles Superior Court seats. Each of them other than Lee is in a run-off in the Nov. 5 election and we remain convinced that Rose, Ransom, Mac and Blount are the right choices. We did not endorse Steve Napolitano in the primary but do so now, unenthusiastically.
x Steve Napolitano
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 39
As we acknowledged in passing over Napolitano in the primary, he is articulate and has ideal judicial temperament. While he would not be an ornery cuss as a judge, he surely would not be a judicial luminary.
As an attorney, he has never handled a Superior Court trial.
Napolitano sought the ballot designation of “Attorney/Mayor, City of Manhattan Beach.” It was disallowed. He’s not the mayor; he was at the time he claimed the designation (and is now) a member of the City Council.
The candidate explained in an email to the MetNews.
“It’s not like I need to make up being Mayor, I’ve been Mayor six times, and I’ve been a Councilmember a lot longer than Mr. Lee has been a DA.”
But he was not the mayor at the time. Under a provision of the Code of Regulations, a candidate may use as a ballot designation a former pursuit, engaged in during the past calendar year, only if the person does not have a current principal profession, vocation, or occupation. Napolitano undertook to provide legal analysis to this newspaper as to why that regulation does not apply to him. His reasoning was pathetically flawed.
The Los Angeles Times on Sunday endorsed him, as it did in the primary, hailing him based on his varied background. He’s been chief deputy to a county supervisor (which hardly qualifies one for the bench), represents inmates at parole hearings by state appointment (for a small fee), and has a law practice—of sorts. He lists his office with the State Bar as being at 1007 N. Sepulveda Blvd. in Manhattan Beach—which is the address of a Post Office, which does not have suites but does have boxes.
The Times says Napolitano is “an administrative law judge.” No, his services are merely engaged from time to time by cities and counties as a “hearing officer,” informally handling relatively minor matters such as parking tickets. A hearing officer, unlike an administrative law judge, need not be an attorney.
Napolitano, himself, does not claim to be an administrative law judge, billing himself, on his website, as “an Administrative Hearing Officer.” But he goes on to say: “I already do what many Superior Civil Court judges do every day….” That aggrandizes his role immensely, generating a false impression.
We do not share the view of the Times that he would be a “great” judge. Based on his background and proclivities, he would be adequate in that role, at best.
His opponent is Deputy Public Defender George A. Turner Jr. who is one of two candidates of the “Defenders of Justice,” sponsored by Tides Advocacy. That national outfit funds various extremist organizations.
Turner, who has appeared to be a pawn of his benefactors, now has his own campaign website. Here’s his message:
“As an attorney, I’ve devoted my career to discovering alternative solutions that cater to the community’s needs. Now, as a judge, I intend to bring that experience to the bench and revolutionize many of the practices that make justice so hard to achieve in our criminal legal system.
It is difficult imagine how a trial judge—bound by statutes, case law, court rules, and the Canons of Judicial Ethics (let alone state and federal constitutional precepts)—could single-handedly “revolutionize” practices in criminal cases. If he’s saying, as it would appear that he is, that he would deviate from prescribed procedures, he’s running on a platform of pledging to commit judicial misconduct.
Indeed, if elected, and assigned to criminal matters (as he blithely assumes he would be), he could not conceivably effect revolutionary measures even within his own courtroom. If he tried to do so, he would be routinely disqualified (“papered”) by prosecutors, and would wind up in a non-criminal assignment.
Of the two candidates, we prefer Napolitano.
x Renee Rose
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 48
A deputy district attorney since 1991 (first in Riverside, then here since 1994), Rose has the experience and knowledge one would hope for in a judge. Possessed of poise and a calm manner, she is hard-working, fair-minded, and intelligent.
Rose is, in our view, exceptionally well suited for judicial service.
We know of no basis for saying the same of her rival, Deputy Public Defender Erika J. Wiley.
The Times endorses Wiley now, as it did in the primary. It said on Sunday:
“Wiley is one of three candidates backed by the Defenders of Justice, a slate led by social justice organization La Defensa. Critics charge that the slate has a political agenda that conflicts with fact-based evenhanded justice. Whether or not that is the case, each of its candidates deserves to be evaluated based on their ability, experience and integrity.”
But part of what a candidate is justifiably judged by is with whom and what that person associates. On May 5, 2008, the Times, in speaking out against the candidacy for the Los Angeles Superior Court of attorney Bill Johnson, did not hesitate to note his link to the Ku Klux Klan (crediting this newspaper with having dug up the facts). How can it now deny the relevancy of Wiley’s sponsorship by La Defensa, a project of Tides Advocacy, which funds groups calling for a defunding of the police and other radical measures?
This is the only one of the five judicial races in which our choice differs from that of the Times. In this instance, we believe the county’s largest-circulated newspaper has made one whopper of a bad call.
x Sharon Ransom
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 97
Ransom, a deputy district attorney for 18 years, is bright and industrious, and a pleasant person. She is ready for a judgeship.
In the primary, she was one of two worthy candidates for the seat. Unfortunately, it was not the other able candidate who got in the run-off with her; it was La Shae Henderson.
Henderson’s ballot designation is “Deputy Public Defender”—but she does not happen to hold that post. She’s a private practitioner. We don’t know how extensive her practice is but her office address, as listed with the State Bar, is only a Post Office box number.
The candidate had been part of the “Defenders of Justice” but she isn’t now. Did she withdraw or was she dumped? With the question put to her, she won’t say. Yet, she proclaims on her campaign website: “I believe in transparency, accountability….”
x Steven Yee Mac
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 135
Mac is both a prosecutor and a defuse lawyer. From 2007 until 2013, he was a fulltime member of the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps; he then became a deputy district attorney but still defends soldiers accused of misconduct as a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, reverting to his former role annually.
He is highly praised in performance evaluations both in the District Attorney’s Office and the JAG Corps based on his judgment, affability, and skill.
His rival for a judgeship, Deputy District Attorney Gloria Huerta, could probably do the job but Mac would excel in it.
x Tracey M. Blount
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 137
Blount is a deputy county counsel. She deals with California law daily. Her opponent, Luz E. Herrera, an associate dean and law professor at Texas A&M in Fort Worth, doesn’t. By Herrera’s own account, she hasn’t handled a matter in the Los Angeles Superior Court since 2009 or 2010.
By no means is Blount lacking in communications skills; Herrera is.
Blount possesses ideal judicial temperament; Herrera doesn’t.
The choice is obvious.
________________________________________
District Attorney
x Nathan Hochman
Los Angeles County District Attorney
In the primary, we urged votes for any of the 11 challengers to the current district attorney, George Gascón, who, unlike any of his predecessors harking back to 1850, has abandoned the role of a prosecutor in seeking hefty advantages for defendants about to be tried or for those who have been convicted. He has stripped his office of esprit de corps, incurred huge liability and potential liability on the part of the county based on his efforts to punish if not silence critics within his office’s ranks, and has consistently made a jackass of himself and disgraced the office.
Making it into a run-off with the incumbent is former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hochman.
We have no expectation that Hochman would perform on the same high level as past D.A.s Evelle J. Younger, John Van de Kamp or Robert H. Philibosian (all now deceased) or three-term D.A. Steve Cooley, but would anticipate that he would not be the underachiever and obnoxious self-promoter that Ira Reiner was.
What counts is that he is not Gascón. So, we endorse him.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company