By Doug Porter
Nobody cares much about judicial electoral contests. And apparently the current batch of judges in Superior Court would like to keep it that way. At least that was the conclusion I drew after talking with more than a dozen local attorneys and prosecutors.
The 2012 judicial elections, where birther lawyer Gary Kreep upset Deputy District Attorney Garland Peed, were a national embarrassment. Since that time, “open seat” judicial contests have all but vanished in San Diego.
One seat, held by Judge Judy Bashant became technically open in 2014 (she had filed for reelection) when her nomination to the Federal District Court was approved by the Senate.
Another potentially open seat was filled by a miraculously timed retirement (Judge Alvin Green on Friday afternoon, January 24) followed by the immediate appointment (January 28) of Keri Greer Katz. Had the retirement been announced on Monday rather than Friday, this would have been an open seat.
Billboard from 2014 campaign removed after pressure brought to bear on Clear Channel.
Federal prosecutor Carla Keehn originally filed in 2014 for what she thought would be an open seat on the court; then–poof–there weren’t any. She ended up running against Judge Lisa Schall and learned the hard way that the court protects its own.
Eventually, Schall’s conviction for drunk driving was plastered on billboards by Keehn. A few phone calls were made and the billboards disappeared.
When San Diego voters review their June 2016 primary ballots, they’ll (hopefully) notice just two contests for Superior Court judges. The other 38 seats on the court due for voter approval, along with the five open seats for different election cycles, won’t be listed.
How We Got Here
The 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, enshrining judicial review of legislation as a key power of the courts, prompted a political movement for term limits on judges.
Thomas Jefferson and others believed the decision tipped the balance of power in favor of a new judicial elite. A six-year term, elections, and other provisions to curtail judicial power are part of every state constitution written after 1846.
In the decades following the mid-nineteenth century, judges made it to the bench through popular — and very political — elections. They ran as members of political parties, openly espousing their platforms.
The progressive era at the beginning of the twentieth century brought about reforms designed to depoliticize the judicial selection process. California now has a hybrid model of appointments and elections, with candidates going through a screening process by Bar Association attorneys.
Higher court judges in California are appointed and subsequently appear on ballots unopposed (yes or no vote) at re-election time. Superior Court judges can also be appointed, but can be challenged by other candidates as their staggered six-year terms expire.
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
Candidates may compete for an open seat caused by retirement or death. In practice, however, open seats due for election are the first to be filled by appointment, allowing the appointee to run as an incumbent. Back in the days before California became essentially a one-party state, some judges (philosophically opposed to the governor in power) would time their retirements in such a manner as to allow for an open seat election.
To be eligible, judicial candidates must have been members of the California bar or served as a judge in the state for 10 years before taking office. A district attorney has to be a state bar member.
From a 2014 Voice of San Diego article:
The debate over whether Superior Court judges should be elected or appointed recurs nearly every election cycle.
Jon Williams, head of the San Diego County Bar Association, said candidates who run for a bench seat avoid the usual vetting that would occur if they were appointed.
“It’s been my observation that there is more interest these days in obtaining the position of judge through the election process,” Williams said. “Back in the day, you didn’t see as many people raising their hand to challenge a sitting judge.”
Judging Judges
Prior to Gov. Jerry Brown, the most common path for judicial appointments was through various prosecutor’s offices. In recent times, a number of public defenders and other attorneys have been nominated, though some critical of the courts say those nominations go to people who go along to get along.
From Anna Daniels 2014 SDFP article on judicial races:
…appointed judges are vetted in a way that elected judges often are not. There are a number of sites recommended by the League of Women Voters to find out more about these judges. The two sites which I found particularly helpful are www.courts.ca.gov and judgepedia.org.
From the local Bar Association website:
As a service to voters, the San Diego County Bar Association (SDCBA) evaluates judicial candidates in contested judicial elections. The SDCBA’s Judicial Election Evaluation Committee (JEEC) evaluates each candidate. The JEEC is comprised of 21 members who represent a cross‐section of San Diego’s legal community by gender and ethnicity, including lawyers from the public and private sectors, civil and criminal law practitioners, corporate counsel, sole practitioners and members of small, medium and large firms. JEEC members are appointed by the SDCBA President and serve a four-year term.
Note the “as a service to voters” part of that statement. The ratings are not part of any legal requirement for a seat on the court. As of this morning (May 5), no ratings have been posted for the June 2016 election.
In San Diego County, the contested seats are:
Superior Court Judge Office 25
James A. Mangione, Incumbent
Website: http://www.electjudgemangione.com/
Appointed in November 2015
From the Times of San Diego:
Mangione, 61, of San Diego, graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law and got his undergraduate bachelor of arts degree from the University of California, San Diego. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Christine Koch Goldsmith.
[Married to City Atty Jan Goldsmith]
Mangione, a Democrat, has been a partner at Wingert, Grebing and Juskie LLP since 2002. He was an attorney in private practice from 1999 to 2002 and in- house counsel at Luna, Brownwood and Rice from 1994 to 1999.
Paul Ware, Justice Department Attorney (with Bureau of Alcohol Firearms & Tobacco)
Website: http://www.wareforjudge.com/
Ran and lost in 2014. Former US Marine Judge.
Superior Court Judge Office 38
Keri Greer Katz, Incumbent
Website:
http://electjudgekatz.com/
Katz has a long political pedigree in San Diego. Her father, Judge Michael Greer was at the heart of a scandal back a few decades. Her husband is Judge Aaron Katz. She served as chief legal adviser to Mayor Jerry Sanders during her stint at the City Attorney’s office. She was the recipient of the miraculously timed appointment to the bench back in 2014 referenced above.
Carla Keehn, Federal Prosecutor
http://www.carlakeehnforjudge.com/
Keehn also ran in 2014, as referenced earlier in the story.
From the San Diego Free Press profile of her in 2014:
Keehn has a long history in law and public service, on both sides of the courtroom. She’s been an Army Judge Advocate General Officer, a public defender, an environmental attorney, and has worked in the US Attorney’s Office in San Diego as a federal prosecutor since 1995. She has worked on cases ranging from drug smuggling to assault on infants, but she says her current position, as coordinator for the Federal Diversion program, is one of the most fulfilling things she has ever done.
A pilot program for rehabilitating of nonviolent federal offenders, the Federal Diversion program has been remarkably successful in San Diego. 500 people have gone through it, kicking their drug habits and gaining the life and job skills they need to be productive members of society. 80% of graduates are employed by the end of one year. And only 3 in 100 people have relapsed into crime. The program Keehn oversees saves taxpayers huge sums of money, costing 10% of what it costs to imprison someone.
Wait, Wait! (Don’t Tell Me)
This simple article on judicial races is one of the toughest I’ve ever had to write.
No lawyer in his/her right mind wants to be quoted in an article about judges.
There is, I believe, a black-robed wall around the local bench. They take care of their own when it comes to politics. The whole business of fundraising for judicial election campaigns gets hinky, especially when considering the bloodlines and marriages abounding in the court system. One story making the rounds is that 30 of the seats on the court are connected; my research found many of the “connections” involved judges no longer on the bench.
And that’s before dealing with the reality of lawyers, who are by nature politically active, making campaign contributions.
Finally, there’s a cottage industry of people who just hate judges. Try an internet search on a judge and they’ll pop up. Sorting the sore losers from the conspiracy theorists from the people who may actually have been wronged is way above my pay grade. I tried, and lots of “great tips” turned out to be dead ends. People get angry when they lose in court. Sometimes they don’t get over it.
On This Day: 1937 – A Lumber strike begins in Pacific Northwest, involving 40,000 workers by the time victory is achieved after 13 weeks: union recognition, a 50¢-per-hour minimum wage and an 8-hour day. 1955 – The musical “Damn Yankees” opened in New York City. It ran for 1,019 performances. 1961 – Alan Shepard became the first American in space when he made a 15-minute suborbital flight.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
Thanks for the info. I think I’ll go for Mangione and Keehn.
Superior Court Judge Kerri Katz is certainly the candidate that needs to be re-elected to the bench.
Judge Katz has both the demeanor and experience that one should have to be a judicial officer.
Judge Katz has been a member of the judiciary for 10 years having served as a commissioner and now judge and has proven herself.
Judge Katz has a diverse legal back round and has tried cases in both State and Federal courts.
When considering candidates, Judge Katz should be at the top of your list and should not be overlooked. Her experience speaks for itself. There is no question that she is the best candidate as she has proven that by her performance as both a commissioner and judge in the San Diego Superior Court for the past 10 years.
I highly recommend Judge Katz for Superior Court Judge office 38.
Carla Keehn is running for seat 38 but yet her sign above states seat 20? She also states that she is the only candidate not convicted of a crime…Judge Kerri Katz does not have any criminal record?
Oh… this is her sign from 2014 that she didn’t update! Judges need to pay great attention to detail in their every day duties…would we want Carla Keehn making such important decisions??
Judge Katz deserves to have your vote! The scale of justice is tipped in her favor⚖
The illustration mentioned in your comment is the billboard referred to in the story. Keehn had no role in selecting this illustration.
Good article regarding the stealth politics in San Diego judicial races that no one wants to talk about.
“This simple article on judicial races is one of the toughest I’ve ever had to write. No lawyer in his/her right mind wants to be quoted in an article about judges. There is, I believe, a black-robed wall around the local bench. They take care of their own when it comes to politics. The whole business of fundraising for judicial election campaigns gets hinky, especially when considering the bloodlines and marriages abounding in the court system.”
This is a real problem that thwarts the public’s ability to freely elected judges or to remove bad judges from the bench. If challengers to appointed judges are intimidated from running, then judicial appointments automatically renew w/o voter say. This is because only contested races go on the ballot. And when they are contested races, the appointed judges (and wannabe appointed judges) circle the wagons against the challengers — so that no one even thinks about doing that again.
Twenty years ago, Keri G. Katz’ father pled guilty to taking money and favors along with other San Diego Superior Court judges, from attorneys in exchange for favorable rulings. One can read about it in the below link. It’s an article written by former Commission on Judicial Performance investigator Joe Plotz titled “Small Town Boys” https://www.scribd.com/doc/202617770/CJP-and-Federal-Criminal-Prosecution-of-Judge-James-Malkus-and-Judge-G-Dennis-Adams-of-San-Diego-County-Superior-Court-Small-Town-Boys-Article-by-Jo
Today, legacy judge Katz has a challenger for her appointed seat, Carla Keehn. Katz is receiving large numbers of contributions from local attorneys and judges. One can see some of them here:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1382820&session=2015&view=received
Coupled with the fact that no one wants to talk about how judges are really made in San Diego County and what they are willing to do to keep their appointed seats for a lifetime, these contributions for seat-retention of a legacy judge, don’t seem to pass the smell test.
I vote none of the above.
I have to disagree with the comment of Sharon Kramer.
All candidates, no matter if it is a sitting judge running for re-election or someone running for the first time, are receiving contributions. I feel that it is very unfair to insinuate that Judge Katz is receiving contributions for different reasons from her opponent.
Why not highlight the personal accomplishments and credentials of Judge Katz?I feel that Juge Katz’s extensive career has been overlooked in an attempt to mar her character.
As of date, Judge Katz has risen from intern to Assistant City Attorney while gaining extensive litigation background in both state and federal courts. Also, she has been a Superior Court Commissioner and Judge for the past 10 years, which seems to have been overlooked. Judge Katz’s “stint” is nearing 30 years!
Carla Keen’s experience was worthy of numerous paragraphs but not Judge Katz’s?
Is this fair and accurate reporting??
Hi Frannie,
You raise some interesting points. I always try to use my first and last name so that people with whom I’m communicating can easily look me up on the Net for a greater understanding of why I feel the way I do on certain issues. If someone was say, Chair of the San Diego Democratic Party, do you think that might be a good thing to disclose to blog-readers — who are trying to decide for whom to vote — and are viewing opinions about local political races?
To answer your questions about Judge Greer-Katz campaign and the implications of a “black-robed wall”; one has to go back to the 2014 judicial races. Unchallenged sitting judges were undermining endorsements for challengers of fellow sitting judges. As I think you may know, I filed a complaint with then Superior Court Presiding Judge Danielson for the judicial misconduct of a fairly new appointed judge, speaking at DNC meetings (and other “nonprofit” potential endorser meetings). “They” were trying to persuade the party not to endorse a registered Democrat Carla Keehn. She was challenging Republican sitting judge Lisa Schall.
One can read the Complaint here: https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/complaint-to-san-diego-presiding-judge-for-subordinate-jurists-election-tampering/ In most relevant part it states:
“As I understand it, ROSENSTEIN is scheduled to speak before the San Diego Democratic Party again on March 18, 2014. Her purpose is to dissuade the organization from endorsing a Democrat candidate for election to judicial office, Carla Keehn, who is running against appointed sitting judge, SCHALL. Please tell ROSENSTEIN to cease the unethical campaigning while abusing voters’ rights, candidate’s rights, and the prestigious title bestowed upon her by appointment – ‘judge”.
As I think you are aware, Judge Rosenstein did not speak at the March 18, 2014 meeting after I complained to Judge Danielson and Keehn then received the party’s overwhelming endorsement. One can read about it here: https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/san-diego-democrats-vote-to-endorse-carla-keehn-for-jurist-seat-20/ In most relevant part it states:
“According to Committee Chair Francine Busby, last night’s packed room was an unusual occurrence for their committee meetings.The crowd overwhelmingly voted “Aye” to endorse Carla Keehn as the best candidate for San Diego County Superior Court jurist seat 20. Committee member and Oceanside City Councilwoman, Esther Sanchez, spoke to delay the endorsement vote until April. She was one of only three or four “Nay” votes heard….San Diego Superior Court Judge Paula Rosenstein was appointed to the bench by Governor Brown in late 2012. In February of this year, she and fellow sitting judge, David Rubin, caused Ms. Keehn to lose the election endorsement of Tom Homann LGBT Law Group by questionable means. Judge Rosenstein also spoke at the February Democratic Party’s meeting against a Keehn election endorsement. She did not attend last night’s meeting.”
So back to this year’s judicial elections. I think you are right that one cannot judge a child by the sins of their father. Just because Greer-Katz’ father was a disgraced San Diego judge twenty some years ago who pled guilty to taking bribes from an attorney for judicial favor (along with two other judges who were convicted for mail fraud, conspiracy and racketeering); doesn’t mean that Greer-Katz has or will do the same.
But it does raise concerns of a continuing “black-robed wall” and business as usual in San Diego — that 15 sitting judges from both parties (eight of whom are running for “re-election” w/o their names even on the ballot b/c they have no challengers) have teamed up with approximately 21 San Diego criminal defense attorneys to raise funds for Greer-Katz’s and the other challenged appointed judge, James Mangione.
One can read about the April 25th fundraiser here:
https://katysexposure.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/scan0055.pdf
And read who the 36 hosts were here:
https://katysexposure.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/katz-mangione-campaign-fundraising-sponsors.pdf
So I don’t think it is a matter of anyone trying to “mar her character” or Mangione’s character. It’s more a matter that the San Diego sitting judges may need to be called on the carpet for trying to collusively influence elections/endorsements — purposed toward making their own judicial appointments lifetime jobs with no voter consent.
As I think you may know, much the same happened in 2014 — culminating with Keehn’s campaign billboards mysteriously being taken down. To this day, I don’t think she knows who ordered that act that probably cost her the election.
This is what I don’t understand. Maybe you can explain it: Why do you think that 21 criminal defense attorneys are fundraising for Greer-Katz and Mangione? Will these attorneys ever have cases before any of their 15 fellow-fundraisers, Greer Katz, Katz’s husband or Mangioune?
Could that be considered unethical for a slew of local attorneys to help a slew of local judges never have to face elections again? Does that bring the problems caused twenty some years ago when judges were accepting favors from attorneys into play?
I hope that the above answers your concerns. It’s not that “all candidates are receiving donations” that matters. It’s WHO is raising funds for which JUDICIAL candidates that causes concern of possibly unethical “black-robed walls” in the local courts.
Wow. Touche! It seems more like a cabal than anything. The entire system is a conflict of interest (and in truth more likely an everyday occurance). Leave it to lawyers to write their own playbook.
I’ll be both in Keen, of this round the apparent least conflicted.
ps. Thanks for the ‘Frannie’ catch. I would’ve never put ‘Francine Busby’ (I’m assuming) and that nickname together.. . an odd omission indeed given the subject matter.
This city is so backwoods it’s haunting. Like quicksand.
Well this time spellchecker proved witty… I’m keen on Keehn!
As a practicing attorney, I take a pragmatic approach to judicial elections. If I have professional experience with a judge up for re-election, I weigh that heavily in my decision. I have no professional experience with Carla Keehn. I have substantial professional experience with Judge Katz. Simply put, she is good at what she does, she works hard and she will make the tough call when that is what it comes down to. So, for me, I will vote for Judge Katz because my experience is that she is appropriately discharging her duties as a Superior Court Judge. Ms. Keehn may well be an excellent judge at some other point in time but not for Superior Court Judicial Office 38 on June 7, 2016. There is no reason to replace Judge Katz.
Dear Mr. Clark,
As an advocate for integrity in the California courts, I take a more analytical, pragmatic approach to judicial elections.
Twenty-five years ago the practice of “hometowning” in the San Diego courts rose to the level of blatant case-fixing for those who bestowed favor upon the judges. It was so bad that three judges – Adams, Malkus and Greer, were found to be taking bribes in conspiracy to commit racketeering. Two of them, Adams and Malkus, went to prison; and one, Greer, was given somewhat of a reprieve for turning state’s evidence.
Given that known history of what can happen when judges accept favor from practicing lawyers and are cajoled into feeling that they should reciprocate; I think extremely bad judgement is currently on display in these local judicial races.
Do you think it is wise and gives no appearance of impropriety for two judges to have practicing criminal defense lawyers soliciting money for the judges to keep their judicial seats? (Keri Greer Katz, Seat 38 & James Mangione, Seat 25)
I find the eyebrow-raising situation potentially hazardous to inpartiality and the administration of justice in the courts. Multiple local judges (not just Greer Katz and Manginone) are collectively accepting favor of local practicing attorneys purposed toward keeping the judges in office.
I think Doug Porter is correct. There IS a “black-robed wall” in the San Diego courts — and for the sake of judicial integrity, it needs to be torn down. I’m voting for judicial-seat challengers, Carla Keehn for Seat 38 and Paul Ware for Seat 25. All four candidates for the two races have been rated “Qualified” by the SDCBA.
For a greater understanding of how the tactics being employed in these two races relate to the systemic problems in the California courts, please read the blog “San Diego Judicial Races: Local Lawyers Raising Money and Red Flags” https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/san-diego-judicial-races-local-lawyers-raise-money-red-flags/
Jerry,
Thank you for your reply. Glad you found my comments informative. That’s just the tip of the iceberg of how dirty these judicial races really are. Check out Times of San Diego’s “Voter Guide to San Diego and California Races in June 7 Primary” http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2016/05/24/voter-guide-san-diego-state-races-june-7-primary/
To quote: “Superior Court There are two contested Superior Court seats. Incumbent Judge James Mangione, who was appointed in 2015, faces Justice Department attorney Paul Ware, and incumbent Judge Keri Katz, a 10-year veteran, is being challenged by Carla Keehn, a federal prosecutor. All four are rated qualified by the San Diego County Bar Association, but the incumbents have many more endorsements, including that of District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis.”
Greer Katz is not a “10-year veteran” of the Superior Court. As San Diego Free Press accurately stated in this article, she was appointed to the bench in 2014. To quote SDFP, “open seat was filled by a miraculously timed retirement (Judge Alvin Green on Friday afternoon, January 24 [2014]) followed by the immediate appointment (January 28 [2014]) of Keri Greer Katz. Had the retirement been announced on Monday rather than Friday, this would have been an open seat.”
The Times does have this aspect right, though. Not only are practicing local criminal defense attorneys collectively soliciting money to keep Greer Katz and Mangione as judges; the two are both endorsed by Bonnie Dumanis. I can’t decide which is more damning to their reputations: having those who protect big time criminals raise money for them — or having Dumanis’s endorsement. Probably the same thing.
FYI, KPBS on Prop H campaign flyers. “Katz declined to talk to KPBS about the mailer and how she felt about being included.” her.”http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/may/27/showusyourmailers-what-neighborhood-improvement-vo/
AN UN-ENDORSEMENT OF SUPERIOR COURT Judge Keri Katz. Brown appointee Katz knows the law, I’m sure. Regrettably, Judge Katz doesn’t understand how some adults, while divorcing, groom their own children to reject and erase the other parent. Katz is one of too many Family Court judges who know the letter of the law yet still don’t recognize the dynamics of parental alienation in their courtroom. They allow themselves to be convinced by the hostile parent who allows (encourages) the children to take sides between mom and dad. I’m sorry to say, Judge Katz has a blind spot in this area of jurisprudence so critical for justice to prevail in the Family Court Division. In large part as a result of Judge Katz’ decision, both my children chose to estrange themselves from me at age 12. As any loving parent would be, I am heartbroken and crestfallen and worried for my kids. But think about it – how does a judge or parent let 12-year-olds take sides in a divorce? (“adultification”) That isn’t a child’s decision. To stop this nonsense, the California State Assembly should pass a law making 50/50 custody/visitation the default until the children are 15. Currently, the law (as I understand it – I’m not an attorney) allows for almost unlimited descretion by the Superior Court judge. And with this descretion, Judge Keri Katz gets a D+ (not passing). There are thousands and thousands of children losing one of their two parents in our courthouses because of judge’s ignorace of parental alienation. Common sense tell us that asking a child to take sides in a divorce is child abuse. It should be common sense to any Superior Court judge – as long as one of the two parents remain hostile, the children are likely being victimized/traumatized. When children then take sides, that’s the fault of the adults not the kids. Kids love both their mom and their dad. They hate fighting and divorce. They don’t understand justice and the rule-of-law. I hope this statement helps fix this terrible societal problem of dividing families as a function of divorce through the family courts. Send a message – make parental alienation unwelcome in the courthouse. Don’t re elect Judge Katz. God bless.