The voters spoke

Regarding the recent article about a sitting judge being defeated in an election (July). That was the people speaking. The political and judicial elite is upset because they don’t want anyone to disturb the status quo. Although appointed by the governor, many judges act as if they were anointed, with bloated egos and an arrogance which is difficult to take.

Since judgeship is an elected office, theoretically, all judges’ names should appear on the ballot when the time comes for re-election. This being somewhat of a democratic republic, no one should be “deemed elected.” The voters should have the right to reject any judge.

H.L. Roy Short
San Diego

Elitist approach

The alternative selection suggested by the July article is for open, public, non-partisan judicial elections. But I have no doubt that the elitist view of those who objected to the election results, who neither understand nor accept the will of the public in a democratic election, will call for the removal of the open, public retention election — the last vestige of public accountability and selection in the California third branch. 

What will be the position of those quoted objecting “members of the legal community,” who place themselves above the will of the people, if Judge Janavs is ousted a second time in another open election? Will they call for replacement of initial gubernatorial judicial selection (from the appointed commission/committee list) for a fiat by select “members of the legal community”? The legal community serves the public interest best, within the third branch, when it replaces judicial selection by elitist appointment politics behind closed doors with the politics of open, public, non-partisan informed elections.

“This unfortunate result” of judicial ouster by public vote (election), Mr. Governor and Mr. CJA President, was the very same process which placed Gov. Schwarzenegger in office over an incumbent. Was it an “unfortunate result” then? 

Larry G. Sage
Administrative Judge
Sparks Municipal Court
Sparks, Nev.

Democracy in action

Judge Friedman’s suggestion is one expected from an arrogant elitist. Why let the fallible masses elect or re-elect judges when a wise group (certainly from the State Bar) could much more tidily appoint them without the mess of the electoral process?

The reason is, we live in a democracy which has proved successful for well over 200 years in providing us with able jurists, legislators and executives answerable to the people who have chosen long ago to govern themselves. We don’t need appointments for life of judges or other unaccountables like those of the European Union. If you think it works at the federal level, take a look at the Ninth Circuit, the laughingstock of the federal judiciary.

F. Keith Varni
San Bernardino

Wrong reason for outcry

If this situation is going to cause an outcry from the legal community, it shouldn’t be because a sitting judge lost her seat but because (winner) Lynn Olson appears so patently unqualified for the position. I don’t see a problem in unseating judges, even qualified ones, with other qualified individuals. And I’m certain that everyone reading this letter can think of at least one judge who has no business being on the bench.

In order to be appointed to an open judicial seat by the governor, an applicant must go through a rigorous screening process. So why then do we allow any attorney with 10 years of practice under their belt to run for an open seat with no prior screening? Maybe the bench and the legislature should focus their attention on that question instead.

Doug Schaller
Fontana

Rough justice

I could not agree more with Bruce M. Stark’s comments (July) about the sorry, sorry state of California’s small claims court system. I have on several occasions been a member of the gallery waiting for a matter to be heard. On those occasions, I have watched “rough justice” of the roughest kind dispensed. Hearsay appears to be king in small claims, opening the door to a system best described as “Liar’s Dice.” While this may create a good afternoon’s entertainment for those in the gallery, it does indeed create a system where those  who can afford Superior Court are afforded one standard of justice and those who cannot are forced to suffer a terribly flawed system. With the bar of “small” claims now at $7,500, isn’t it time to ban hearsay from the small claims venue?

Bonnie M. Reeves
Fremont

A bad idea

I am an attorney in Los Angeles and have practiced law for more than 30 years. I oppose the mandatory malpractice insurance proposals. We are a small law firm of four attorneys. We carry malpractice insurance. Our position is now, and was a few years ago when this matter reared its ugly head, to oppose this idea in that it would invite more lawsuits than appropriate. Many attorneys will not file suit against another attorney who has no malpractice insurance, feeling that it would not be profitable. The uninsured attorney would not be a good target for litigation. I believe that this would stir up more litigation and not benefit anyone. 

Sam K. Abdulazis
North Hollywood

A bunch of nonsense

All this nonsense I read in your publication as well as other law journals leads me to believe that you people are so wrapped up in this affirmative action, aka diversity, that you have lost sight of what is important to the legal profession.

Your purpose should be to advance your profession with professional articles. However, all you do is whine, whine, whine about numbers — not enough Mexicans, not enough blacks, not enough females. I imagine you probably break it down further and probably leave out white males and white females that are conservative and don’t hew to your liberal ideology.

You should be looking for competence, not quotas.

Henri Popell
Vista