I'll kick things off with No on William McGuiness:

http://nomcguiness.blogspot.com/

Check out that site for a perfect example of how important these votes for or against the judges are!

Re: California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard

Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Friday, October 20, 2006

Page 6

EDITORIAL

GOP Volunteers Disgrace Party by Opposition to Kennard

High office-holders in the State of California with Republican Party membership have well served the citizenry over the past several decades. Governors have included the likes of Goodwin J. Knight, Ronald Reagan, and George Deukmejian, and among the attorneys general have been Evelle J. Younger and Dan Lungren.

The Republicans who have been in power have been able and sensible.

It is a shame that volunteers in clubs and central committees so often have been unthinking ideologues who have tarnished the image of their party through foolish stances.

The California Republican Assembly last week went on record in opposition to California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard in her bid for voter retention in the Nov. 7 general election. Kennard is second to no jurist in this state in adeptness. She has a knack of crafting opinions that are crisp, readable, and persuasive. Her analytical abilities are of the highest order. Indeed, Kennard�s fitness for membership on the state�s highest court could not possibly be questioned by anyone who reads and understands appellate court opinions.

Yet, the CRA, through unanimous action of its board, opposes Kennard�s continuation in office. Why? Because she joined in an opinion striking down a statute requiring girls under 18 to obtain parental consent to, or judicial authorization of, abortions.

In 1997, Kennard signed an opinion by Chief Justice Ronald George invalidating the statute on the ground that it ran afoul of the state constitutional privacy right. Justice Stanley Mosk (since deceased) authored a dissent. The opinions followed a grant of rehearing. A 1996 opinion by Mosk, then writing for the majority, upheld the law. Kennard and two other justices wrote dissents.

Here�s how Kennard�s 1996 dissent began:

�California�s parental consent law, which prohibits abortions for women under the age of 18 years without either the consent of one parent or judicial authorization, may at first glance appear so eminently reasonable that its constitutional validity could scarcely be in doubt. But evidence received at the trial of this case, much of it based on the experience of other states with similar laws, shows that the benevolent appearance of parental involvement laws is deceiving; the laws have serious adverse effects and yield few benefits for children or society.�

Kennard looked at the evidence and at the prevailing legal standards. She drew fine distinctions. Her approach was meticulous, evidencing fidelity to law, not a desired result.

While we would, in the end, agree with Mosk�s 1997 dissent, it cannot be said that Kennard performed other than as a jurist dutifully applying the law to facts, and doing so with skill and objectivity.

In an interview with the MetNews on Friday, the president of the CRA, Mike Spence, declared that Kennard �is an enemy of parental rights� and that �Proposition 85 is on the ballot because of justices like Joyce Kennard.� Spence, who is not an attorney, reasoned:

�If you are voting yes on 85, you should vote no on Joyce Kennard.�

The notion that a jurist should be denied retention based on a single vote in a case�and one from a decade ago, at that� is ludicrous. It reflects utter ignorance as to the proper role of judges.

Favoring Proposition 85 is by no means inconsistent with voting yes on the retention of Kennard. One could agree with Kennard that the statute was infirm because of its conflict with a state constitutional provision, but want to render parental consent constitutional through an amendment to the Constitution. Or, one could disagree with Kennard�s vote in the one particular case, but also adhere to the notion of a need for judicial independence.

There is no realistic chance that Kennard will be denied retention, and we would not, ordinarily, bother to endorse her. Our purpose is to point to the silliness of volunteer political groups taking knee-jerk stances on judicial candidates.

In Orange County, vote for Sheila Hanson (Democrat) for Judge.
She is endorsed by the Orange County Central Committee of the Democratic Party.

Sharon Toji

In San Diego County, please vote for Rod Shelton, who has been endorsed by both the San Diego County Democratic Party and the Republican District Attorney, for whom he works. A former public defender, Rod has received the State Bar's highest rating. His opponent is a fundamentalist Christian.

For those of you who are voting for judicial races in the LA County area, Speak Out California friend and supporter Marcia Herman writes:

"Please vote yes on the following races:
Office 8------ Sanches
Office 18----- Daviann Mitchell
Office 102---- H. Zacky
Office 104---- B. Tillmon
Office 144---- Barquist"

I just found this, it's conservative...

http://www.judgevoteguide.com/

when in doubt, do the opposite of what they've got!

Beware of people giving out lists of judicial candidaets near polling places:

http://www.newsobserver.com/138/story/505370.html

Thanks to all who have posted the judge information provided so far, it has been very helpful.
I need further info on judges Marchiano, Margulies, Haerle, Richman, Siggins, Ruvolo, Sepulveda, Rivera, and Jones.
Anyone?
Thanks!

Regarding 6th Appellate District, Associate Justice Richard J. McAdams is a brilliant and caring man with many years in Santa Cruz, first in a legal aid office, then running it, then private practice with distinction, then Municipal Court Judge, and then Superior Court Judge, where he provided our county with the best family law judge in 30 years. He has served well and enthusiatically on the Appellate Bench and deserves to continue.

Here is a link to Appellate Court Judge and Candidate info through the League of Women Voters Educational site.

This is specific to the 1st Appellate District but other District and Judicial info on candidates is available.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/np/judicial.html

Any info on other orange county candidates. Local as well as judicial; Corrigan,McConnell,Benke,Huffman,Haller,Aaron,Irion,McKinster,Richli,King,Miller,O'Leary,Ikola.

Thanks

Thanks, Dan Ancona, for the link to judgevoteguide.There were enough dittohead talking points in the first paragraph to tell me "yes means no" and vice versa.

OC judges:
Supreme Court Justice
yes – Joyce L. Kennard
yes – Carol A. Corrigan
Court of Appeal Justice: 4th Appellate District
yes – Cynthia G. Aaron (Division 1)
no – Patricia D. Benke (Division 1)
no – Judith L. Haller (Division 1)
no – Richard D. Huffman (Division 1)
yes – Joan K. Irion (Division 1)
yes – Judith McConnell (Division 1)
yes – Jeffrey King (Division 2)
no – Art W. McKinster (Division 2)
no – Douglas P. Miller (Division 2)
no – Betty A. Richli (Division 2)
yes – Kathleen O’Leary (Division 3)
no – Raymond J. Ikola (Division 3)
Superior Court Judge
Sheila Hansen

HELP!!
I can't find http://www.judgevoteguide.com/ Have they changed their address? (I've only got 2 hrs left - and friends waiting for my info!)
Thanks.