Californians want their trial judges to be independent and accountable. The tension between those two competing goals can never be fully resolved, but it is partially addressed by a judicial election system in which they are automatically re-elected every six years without their names even appearing on the ballot.
Unless they are challenged. When one or more candidates compete against a sitting judge running for re-election, voters decide whether to retain the judge or elect a challenger.
Judicial independence is so essential to a legitimate judicial system that The Times rarely recommends the removal of judges, even if (indeed, especially if) they have issued controversial rulings. Judges should focus on correcting the law and facts, not on being popular. Challenges are particularly inappropriate when judges are attacked because of their names, ethnic identities, or other traits that have nothing to do with their ability to perform their duties.
However, incumbents can sometimes demonstrate by their behavior, rather than their decisions, that they are unfit to continue in office.
Two Los Angeles County Superior Court judges were recused in the March 5 election. The Times recommends one for re-election, but not the other (recommendations for the eight vacant seats on the Superior Court will be published in a later editorial).
Office No. 12: Lynn Diane Olson
Lynn Diane Olson's current assignment is the Superior Court magistrate unit, where she considers requests for search warrants, pre-arraignment bonds, and emergency orders. She previously worked in various civil and criminal courts and earned a reputation as a strong and hard-working judge.
Last year, he charged a lawyer with contempt of court for disruptive conduct. That attorney, Deputy Public Defender Rhonda A. Haymon, is now trying to defeat her.
Olson is easily the best option. The incident was the only time in his career that Olson disrespected an attorney, and a transcript shows the order was justified. It was upheld on appeal. She is a level-headed judge who showed that she knows how to handle a courtroom.
Haymon says she was simply being an enthusiastic defender when she repeatedly interrupted and criticized Olson, even though she was warned to stop. But a good lawyer doesn't let her passion for defending her client backfire, even if she believes she's right. Haymon's behavior is outside of acceptable limits for a lawyer and would be even more inappropriate for a judge. Any grudge she continues to harbor against Olson is a poor justification for challenging her for re-election.
The twist in this race is that Olson also had no justification for challenging renowned jurist Dzintra Janavs in 2006. Olson was an inactive lawyer who ran a bakery and was poorly qualified to be a judge, but she defeated Janavs, most likely because voters who They have little information when selecting judges, they were discouraged by the foreign name of the incumbent. Janavs was so eminently qualified that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger almost immediately reappointed her to the court.
This is the second time since then that Olson has been challenged, and it's tempting to feel satisfied with the well-deserved payoff. But between the two candidates, Olson remains the best choice.
Office No. 124: Kimberly Repecka
Emily Theresa Spear, then a deputy district attorney, was elected to the Superior Court in 2018. In 2021, she suffered what she said was a serious illness that caused her to leave the courthouse early or not appear at all. The problem is that she did not notify the court or record her absences.
According to the Commission on Judicial Performance in a 2023 public reprimand (a medium level of discipline), Spear's misconduct included unauthorized absences, as well as “derogatory comments about a judicial colleague; discourteous conduct and false statements toward his supervising judge; and manipulation of his schedule for personal gain.”
His absences from the Family Law Court had a direct effect on the public. Two petitions for domestic violence restraining orders that should have been resolved immediately were delayed for several days.
“I'm very sorry for acting that way,” Spear told the editorial board, and that may well be the case. But she was disrespectful to the court, to her colleagues and, most importantly, to the public.
The Times has endorsed the reelection of judges whose behavior was even more egregious, but that's because their rivals were even less impressive.
But Spear's rival, Kimberly Repecka, is capable and well-regarded. She represented children in dependency court and now works as a deputy public defender.
Repecka acknowledges that she is targeting Spear because of the incumbent's misconduct and because no one else stepped forward to challenge her. But it's not a grudge match; Repecka has never appeared in Spear's courtroom.
This is the first time in more than 30 years that The Times has recommended the defeat of a sitting judge. It's not that Spear is the worst judge running for re-election in those decades. But he has proven that he is unfit and has been challenged by a better candidate. The Times recommends voting for Repecka.
