If you think Judges are a non-partisan office, you would be technically correct. But in reality, as attested to by rulings of the 9th Circuit Court, we have judges trying to write the law from the bench. Many of these judges worked their way up through California Courts. We are working to get Judges elected that will rule fairly based on the constitution and existing law. These races are L.A. County wide. Judicial Recommendations: Office No. 8: Bob Henry Office No. 18: Daviann L. Mitchell* Office No. 102: Hayden Zacky Office No. 104: Leave Blank Office No. 144: David W. Stuart
* Daviann is our favorite candidate You have the ability to remove Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Justices with a no vote. Neutral means we are not going to vote on these positions. Supreme Court Justice Neutral Joyce L. Kennard Neutral Carol A. Corrigan Court of Appeal Justice, Second Appellate District Division One No Robert M Mallano No Frances Rothschild Division Two Yes Roger Boren Yes Victoria M. Chavez Division Three Yes Patti S. Kitching Yes Richard D. Aldrich Division Four Neutral Norman L. Epstein Yes Thomas L. Willhite Neutral Nora M. Manella Yes Steven Suzukawa Division Five No Richard M. Mosk Yes Sandy R. Kriegler Division Six No Arthur Gilbert Division Seven No Dennis M. Perluss Yes Fred Woods No Laurie D. Zelon Division Eight No Candace D. Cooper No Madeleine Flier If you want to help restore sanity into the L.A. Court System, tell your friends, tell your neighbors, to vote on the Judges recommended above. Please read the analysis to understand how our recommendations were arrived at. Candidate Statements: Having a candidate statement is a big advantage. Fortunately three of the four recommended Superior Court candidates have a candidate statement. We were so busy running our State Assembly campaign that we had not asked the candidates, whom we have seen on numerous occasions, what the cost of the candidate statement was. The cost as reported from the judicial interviews with the League of Woman Voters is 27,000 in the general election, thank you Nick for providing the information. Judicial Summary: This year was especially difficult to obtain information on the Judicial Races. We sent out a short questionnaire to each judicial candidate. (Note: judicial candidates are barred from answering issues based questions). We would like to thank the Metropolitan News-Enterprise (http://www.metnews.com/ ), they are doing a fantastic job of digging into each of the races and providing much needed background information. Fortunately, we have also made a number of contacts that provided advice and guidance. We thank these people for their tremendous assistance and we respect their desire to remain anonymous. We were particularly surprised that the L.A. Times recommendations were almost the same as the results of our research. The replacement of some of their editorial staff is obviously working to get factual based decisions in their recommendations. Below is our analysis for each candidate we will update as additional information is available. Office No. 8 Bob Henry: Bob Henry was rated "Well Qualified" by the LA County Bar Association in 2004. Bob Henry was the only one to reply to my question for Office No. 8. We are including his responses below. He does not have a campaign website to refer you to, but he does have a little information at http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/la/vote/henry_b/ Responses to Government for the People Questionnaire: " 1. Please describe your qualifications to be a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. I am a graduate of Harvard Law School, Class of 1973, where I graduated with a B average. I joined the Attorney Generals Office in 1974, starting in the Civil Division. There, I tried the first OSHA citation given. I was mainly responsible for closing diploma mills. I filed suits to collect funds from wealthy individuals collecting state aid. In addition, I filed actions against nursing homes for unsanitary conditions and filed actions to recover monies for medical assistance to medi-cal patients for injuries they received in auto accidents where 3rd parties were responsible. In 1978, I transferred to the Criminal Division and have handled approximately 800 felony appeals since then. I have tried approximately 5 felony cases including a 5 defendant rape case. My record of winning death penalty cases before the California Supreme Court is 4-0. I have handled approximately 8 death penalty cases at one time or another. From approximately 1991 to 1999, I was Asst. Capital Case Coordinator for the Los Angeles office. I have reviewed approximately 100 capital pleadings done by other prosecutors. 2. Why do you want to be a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge? At this stage of my career, I liken it to a Bachelors degree awardee wanting to get his Doctorate. I feel that my experience has prepared me to be a judge at this stage of my life and that because of my extensive knowledge, I would make a good judge. 3. Do you consider the U.S. Constitution a living document? Please elaborate. I am sorry but I am uncomfortable with this concept. Of course, we have to apply the same constitution written in 1787 to current problems. However, a "living document" seems to imply that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the political fashion of the day, or even much worse, the political beliefs of the interpreter. The legislative process provides the means to change the Constitution if the majority so desires. It is not the province of judges." We completely agree with Bobs assessment of the U.S. Constitution, the legislative process is where changes to the U.S. Constitution should occur. We spoke at length to Henry on 21 May 2006. This is one of the two races that we did not pick the candidate with the highest rating. When Henry questioned the drop from Well Qualified in 2004 to Qualified this year, Henry was informed that different people at a different times were making the evaluations. We suspect when he was asked why he was not involved in bar activities, and that he seemed to only do his job and go home is indicative of a LACBA club mentality and not a true evaluation of ability. In 2004, a quote Henry made in defense of a colleague following an appeal of a Qualified rating that resulted in a Not Qualified rating, was taken out of context. In 2005 Henry tried one of the biggest cases of his career, an appeal of an Anderson Hawthorne death penalty case, in which the defendant latched onto the recent fad of appealing on the basis that it would be cruel and unusual to execute a mentally deficient person, even though that person had never demonstrated any previous deficiency. We believe that not being part of the social activities of the LACBA, defending a colleague against a LACBA downgrade (we rate exceptionally high his actions in this regard), and representing the people to defend the death penalty, caused the drop in his LACBA rating. Of particular note, Henry has defended other candidates which he considered qualified but were rated Not-Qualified, including David Crawford, who was rated Qualified in 2002. Consequently, we are reaffirming our recommendation. Opposing Bob Henry is Deborah Sanchez. Sanchez seams to be a solid Deputy City Attorney, but does not have the experience of Bob Henry. Sanchezs website: http://sanchez4judge.com/ [Update 10/8/2006 Sanchez also seems to have the making of being a judicial activists. A quote from Sanchez "However, an experienced judicial officer should also know when a deviation is necessary to ensure justice occurs." What she is basically saying is when she knows better than the legislature and the people, she will rule as she sees fit. We already have too much judicial activism, we do not need anymore.] Office No. 18 Daviann Mitchell: Daviann Mitchell was rated "Qualified" by the LA County Bar Association, which we believe is low. Responses to Government for the People Questionnaire: Do you consider the U.S. Constitution a living document? Please elaborate. "It is my opinion that when our founding fathers drafted the Constitution, issues that currently face us today were not anything they could have imagined in their greatest dreams. Nevertheless, a document was drafted - a document we proudly call the "United States Constitution," and the Constitution has been able to withstand the test of time and the most extraordinary challenges that modern society presents. While it is necessary to interpret the Constitution with modern application, it is most important that we hold true to the document itself as best we are able. Nothing is black and white, however, it is not all gray either. With the drafters intent in mind, we must uphold the Constitution and appropriately apply it to the issues of today." We spoke with Daviann face to face on 20 May, 2006 and came away impressed. We asked her about being rated Qualified, she believed that it might have something to do with a disproven complaint by an opposing defense attorney early in her career or perhaps that she does not have civil experience. We believe that it is another case of Daviann not winning the popularity contest with the LACBA. Daniel Lowenthal came up in our conversation, and to her credit, she defended Lowenthals capability to be a judge. Daviann stated that people should be evaluated on their merit and not be discounted because of his parents or wifes politics. We have continuously met Daviann as she is working very hard to gather support. Daviann never fails to impress and has a strong commanding presence. We have also spoken with acquaintances of Daviann Mitchell and they speak very highly of her. The L.A. Times has endorsed her and it looks like they got it right. Her website is http://www.mitchell4judge.com/ . Noteworthy is her endorsement from Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley who does not give out endorsements lightly. From her website "Mitchells experience has ranged from patrol officer in an urban police department, to a state Supreme Court judicial clerk, to civil litigation and finally to a Deputy District Attorney in the Los Angeles County Hardcore Gang Division." Daviann has a wide range of prior experience and we rate being a former police officer very highly. Opposing Daviann Mitchell is John C. Guitierrez. John C. Guitierrez is a serial judicial candidate and while he is rated Qualified this time, we believe that he falls in the low end of that rating. Guiterrez information at http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/la/vote/gutierrez_j/ Office No. 102: Hayden Zacky: The Los Angeles County Bar Association rated Hayden Zacky "Well Qualified" Responses to Government for the People Questionnaire: Do you consider the U.S. Constitution a living document? Please elaborate. "I believe the law is the law. Judges should only interpret the law and should not ever legislate from the bench." A little brief on the response, but he is a too the point kind of guy. By all accounts Hayden Zacky is an effective and well respected prosecutor ready to take the step to being a Superior Court Judge. We rate District Attorney Steve Cooleys endorsement very highly and this is what he has to say "I gladly give you my unequivocal endorsement for your judicial candidacy." L.A. Times "His demeanor and presence make him ready to serve as a judge." His website is located at: http://www.zacky4judge.com/Biography/biography.html. Opposing Hayden Zacky is George Montgomery. We have met George C. Montgomery a couple of times and he is very personable and engaging. We did like the gentleman, but statements he made regarding other candidates party registration were inaccurate, on top of playing fast and loose with the teacher part of his candidate statement are a concern. Later on he was chastising friends of ours for passing on our endorsements and he was still playing fast and loose with the facts. Montgomery was rated as "Not Qualified" by the LACBA and we have to concur. Office No. 144: David W. Stuart: The Los Angeles County Bar Association rated David Stuart "Well Qualified" Responses to Government for the People Questionnaire: Do you consider the U.S. Constitution a living document? Please elaborate. "The Constitution is "living" in the sense that it was meant to provide a legal and political framework that would endure long into the future. This does not mean, however, that the Constitution was meant to be ignored or circumvented when personal or political considerations make compliance with its provisions uncomfortable or difficult. One of the bedrock principles embodied in our Constitution is the notion of the limitation of government power. Accordingly, judges are not free to "breathe life" into Constitutional provisions according to whatever political winds might be prevailing at the time. The Framers of the Constitution wisely placed responsibility for the political process squarely into the hands of the legislature and not the judiciary. Thus, in keeping with the intent of the Framers, we must demand that our judges apply the law as it exists--not as they might wish it to be." My sources say that David Stuart is the best candidate in the group running for this office. His web site is at http://www.stuartforjudge.com/index.htm . He is endorsed by Steve Cooley, Los Angeles County District Attorney. As we have stated earlier, Cooleys endorsement is a key discriminator in making recommendations. Stuart was rated as Qualified by the L.A. County Bar Association in 2000. Since then he has acquired a significant amount of experience. From his website "Judicial Philosophy A judges job should be to apply the law, not to legislate it.
As a judge, I will safeguard the rights of crime victims.
I will help to restore public confidence in the fairness and integrity
of our court system." This is what we are looking for in judicial candidates. Opposing David Stuart is Janis Barquist. Barquist is endorsed by the radical far left of the Democrat Party, which loves judicial activists which we already have enough of. Barquist deceptively indicates on her website that she has the endorsement of the Press-Telegram, but does not mention that Stuart and Hammock do also. "Media Outlets
The Long Beach Press-Telegram" Actually in the Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Office No. 144: Any of three well qualified candidates would be fine choices: Janis Levart Barquist, a deputy city attorney; David W. Stuart, a prosecutor, and Randolph Martin Hammock, a consumer law attorney." Janis Barquist is rated Well Qualified, her website is: www.barquistforjudge.com. Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Justices are recommended on how our staff is going to vote. Lawyers and Organizations are loath to say anything bad about anyone at this level, so information is even harder to come by on these races. We are voting no on some of the more extreme liberal Jerry Brown appointments (Jerry Brown's choice of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had to be recalled by the people). We are also voting no on some Gray Davis appointments that bypassed a lot of Superior Court Judges that we believe were better qualified. Update 10/19/2006 Changed the Supreme Court recommendations to Neutral, the media cannot be trusted to get out the whole truth, so we received addition information from other sources. Kennard voted twice against parental notification of a minor getting an abortion, that is why proposition 85 is necessary. Kennard also disagreed with the majority's decision to void 4,000 same-sex marriages instead of waiting to rule on the constitutionality of the state marriage statutes (We did know about this, it was a concern). Kennard should have ruled based on Proposition 22, Marriage between a Man and a Woman. With Schwarzenegger as Governor, we believe it would be unlikely to do any better than Kennard and we could potentially do worse. I see little benefit in opposing Kennard and a lot of potential problems. We are also fixing the problems with parental notification, by passing proposition 85. I have talked to many people who want to shuffle the deck and see what comes out. We will let the people decide on this. Corrigan has the potential to rule against proposition 22, Marriage between a Man and a Woman. Equality California has spoken highly of this appointment "We are encouraged by Justice Corrigan’s appointment to the State Supreme Court and what that means for LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender] Californians”. We cannot support someone that may rule against the will of the people. Corrigan is the replacement appointment for Janice Rogers Brown and we would have liked to see someone similar to Brown take her spot. With so little time and just the potential for adverse rulings, we are going to go neutral. A message will be sent if you either do not vote on the Supreme Court Justices or vote no, so either way you can show your concern for their future rulings. end update In service to California, Michael A. Jackson President of Government for the People Elissa M. Jackson Vice-President of Government for the People Government for the People P.O. Box 8609 Long Beach, CA 90808-0609 CA FPPC # 1264355 Donations are not tax deductible The above is the opinion and analysis of the staff of "Government for the People". We believe that all the information is true and correct. The information is provided to you in order to assist in making an informed choice on Election Day | 
