By John Poulos

The voters of Yolo County are presented with a contested election for the office of Yolo Superior Court judge. Contested judicial elections are rare enough to warrant a discussion of the unique requirements for this office.

How should you, the voter, assess the qualifications of the two candidates: Dan Maguire, who is currently a Yolo Superior Court judge, and his challenger Clint Parish, a deputy district attorney?

California law requires the governor to submit the names of all persons the governor wishes to appoint to a Superior Court judgeship to the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation of the State Bar of California.

The commission assesses each nominee on the basis of impartiality; freedom from bias; industry; integrity; honesty; broad legal experience (e.g., litigation and non litigation experience, legal work for a business or nonprofit entity, experience as a law professor or other academic position, legal work in any of the three branches of government and legal work in dispute resolution); professional skills; intellectual capacity; judgment; community respect; commitment to equal justice; judicial temperament; communication skills; and job-related health.

Based on these qualifications, the commission determines whether the candidate is qualified to be a judge of the Superior Court in California. The commission’s rating (as well as all information gathered during the investigation) is not made public.

A voter should use these qualifications to cast his or her vote in this election, for they identify the traits a judge must have to be appointed or elected to the Superior Court in California.

The assessment of Maguire’s judicial qualifications is an easy task. Since he was appointed by the governor, we know the commission found him qualified to be a Superior Court judge.

Given Maguire’s record of intellectual achievement while at Stanford (Phi Beta Kappa), his graduation from Harvard Law School with honors, and his clerking for Judge Andrew Kleinfeld of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (a great honor in the academic legal profession), one would be surprised if Judge Maguire was not rated “extremely well qualified” by the commission.

Furthermore, every current Yolo County judge agrees with the commission’s assessment. Of equal importance, each judge knows exactly what the job requires and the character attributes that one must have to be a Superior Court judge. They have worked closely with Maguire since he was sworn into office in 2010.

They are uniquely qualified to judge the quality of Maguire’s work and his qualifications. They collectively tell us that Maguire “… has all the qualities you expect and want of a judge.” Their unanimous recommendation is entitled to great deference.

As far as we know, Parish has never been evaluated by the commission and his candidacy is not supported by a single judge. If Parish qualifies in any of the areas evaluated by the commission, we must glean those qualifications from the information he provides us and the statements of his supporters.

The problem is that Parish has not given us much of the information we need to make the necessary comparison between his qualifications and those of Maguire. His website does not address most of the 14 qualifications for judicial office evaluated by the commission and his mailers contain a few bullet points stating simple conclusions.

One of the verifiable facts he offers is “Yolo County DA for 10 Years — Prosecuting Over 1,000 cases.” Qualification 6 tells us that a judicial candidate should have “broad legal experience.” Parish’s experience simply does not meet this criterion. It is experience in the narrow legal specialty of prosecuting criminal cases. Furthermore, we know nothing about the quality of that experience.

We also know that 10 years of doing the same narrow specialty does not broaden one’s understanding of the multitude of legal issues that come before a judge on a daily basis. At best, Parish would learn more and more about less and less. At worst, it would be a dull legal routine as he grinds through the years of doing what he learned years ago.

Parish has chosen to support his candidacy, for the most part, not by giving us assessable facts on the needed requirements, but on endorsements and an attack on Maguire’s character. Indeed, Parish’s attack is the centerpiece of his campaign. And since it has caused him to lose most of his endorsements, it must be considered here.

The California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon B, tells candidates in a judicial election “…that they shall not … knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, misrepresent the … qualifications … or any other fact concerning … his or her opponent.” It is fair to assume that Parish knew the law governing judicial elections and he knowingly (or with reckless disregard for the truth) chose to violate it by circulating his now-infamous campaign flier to the voters of Yolo County.

The flier, tells us, for example, that “Dan Maguire was Arnold’s Bagman.” The Encarta Dictionary defines a “bagman” as “somebody who delivers or collects money for criminals.” This statement is patently false. It is both an apparent violation of California’s libel laws and a violation of Canon B.

Legal and ethical violations of the law governing campaigning for judicial office should disqualify Parish from the office he seeks. Judges must uphold the law, not violate it.

Parish’s endorsers apparently agree. For example, Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto is quoted as saying, “I don’t support that kind of campaigning. … You have to run a campaign on your merit and your skills, not by tearing down your opponent. I do not want to be a part of that.”

Many of Parish’s endorsers followed Prieto’s lead, withdrawing their support. They include District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Parish’ boss; the Woodland Professional Police Employees’ Association; the Yolo County Republican Party; and Assemblyman Jim Nielsen.

What is Parish’s response to all of this? To date, there has been no published public apology to Maguire, or to the voters of Yolo County. Nor has he withdrawn his candidacy. Instead, he expresses “regret” for the flier, “takes responsibility” for it, and plods on, despite the little that is left of his campaign.

All qualifications considered, we should overwhelmingly vote for Judge Dan Maguire.

— John Poulos is professor of law emeritus at UC Davis. He has been a member of the State Bar of California since January 1963. Poulos retired from practice, which included jury trials and appeals in civil and criminal cases, several years ago. Because he is retired, he will not be appearing before Judge Maguire. The views expressed in this column are his alone and do not reflect the views of the UCD Law School.

Comments

comments