<\/p>\n
Alameda Superior Court judicial candidates Selia Warren and Michael Johnson have the experience and temperament to be judges.<\/p>\n
Lea Suzuki\/S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n
Few ballot decisions are more vexing for California voters<\/a> than nonpartisan, county elections for Superior Court judges.<\/p>\n The vast majority of the more than 1,750 judges who serve in that capacity are appointed by the governor. Vetting for these appointments is exhaustive.<\/p>\n Candidates must submit a list of 50 people they\u2019ve worked with\u00a0\u2014 including legal opponents they\u2019ve faced in court\u00a0\u2014 to the state Judicial Nominees Evaluation Committee<\/a>, which then conducts a months-long background check into character, health, temperament and experience.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the governor\u2019s office also relies on local bar associations to rank candidates anywhere from \u201cnot qualified\u201d to \u201cextremely qualified\u201d based on their reputation in the community and aptitude for the law.<\/p>\n So, if California has an exacting process for selecting qualified judges, why do these positions still occasionally show up on your ballot?<\/p>\n San Francisco Chronicle Logo<\/p>\n Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Add Preferred Source<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Voters get involved in only two instances<\/a>: when an incumbent judge is challenged at the conclusion of a six-year term and when a vacancy occurs that the governor has not yet filled.<\/p>\n The Chronicle editorial board has begun rolling out its endorsements for California\u2019s June primary election. In the weeks to come, we will publish our assessments of all the state races, including the governor\u2019s race, plus local races and ballot measures. To read more about how the editorial board makes its election endorsements, go here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Plus: Look out for the Chronicle\u2019s Voter Guide to publish in early May, as ballots get mailed out across the Bay Area.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n That doesn\u2019t happen often. But when it does, voters have to proceed without the benefit of a team of skilled lawyers conducting background checks.<\/p>\n County voter guides sometimes contain a 200-word introduction written by a candidate. But they can be expensive\u00a0\u2014 $34,871 in Alameda County\u00a0\u2014 causing some candidates to skip it. Meanwhile, the California Code of Judicial Ethics limits how much judges and judicial candidates can speak about specific cases<\/a>.<\/p>\n Legal experts we spoke with said courtroom experience, measured temperament and community service were among the most important things to consider when voting for a judge. Unlike other political races, a judge must not allow their personal views to supersede the law. Endorsements from sitting judges can also help guide voters.\u00a0<\/p>\n In Alameda County this year, there are two vacant Superior Court seats, with two candidates running for each in the June election. After interviewing the candidates in person, the Chronicle\u2019s editorial board was impressed with the qualifications and temperament of all four. Alameda County voters will be well-served regardless of who they select. That said, two candidates stood out.<\/p>\n Michael Johnson is an appointed judge and\u00a0has legal experience in civil and criminal law.<\/p>\n Lea Suzuki\/S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n Seat 13<\/p>\n Michael Johnson, who was appointed as a temporary Superior Court judge in 2019, is our pick to fill Seat 13 on the court.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Johnson has extensive legal experience in the civil and criminal realms\u00a0\u2014 and on the bench. Over the past seven years, he has handled traffic, small claims, civil harassment and family law cases at Alameda Superior Court, and he has earned the endorsements of several fellow judges.<\/p>\n Before his temporary judicial appointment, he worked as a corporate trial lawyer for AT&T, handled data privacy law for Warner Bros., ran a private practice, taught at John\u00a0F. Kennedy School of Law, assisted civil rights attorney John\u00a0Burris on litigation and served as general counsel for the Charles Houston Bar Association. He has also been a fixture at the NAACP\u2019s Oakland branch, where he sits on the legal redress committee.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m running for Alameda County Superior Court judge because of my 35-plus years of legal experience and deep community involvement,\u201d Johnson told the editorial board. \u201cI just feel compelled to bring that to bear for a higher level of public service.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n At a time when funding cuts have impacted courtroom staffing, Johnson, who has served on the court\u2019s Bench-Bar Coalition, has smart plans to work with the presiding judge and the judicial council to fight for a budget increase.<\/p>\n Johnson\u2019s opponent, attorney Cabral Bonner, is also an experienced trial lawyer and boasts his own endorsements from sitting Alameda Superior Court judges. In 2006, after graduating from Stanford Law School, he joined his father\u2019s law firm, where he has worked on employment discrimination, civil rights and police excessive force cases.\u00a0Bonner told the editorial board that his father \u201chas always been kind of the rainmaker\u201d of the practice, while he handled the technical details of the caseload.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n After a career advocating for clients, Bonner said, he \u201cstarted to think about how I could devote my energy and my resources in a way that more fit who I am, which is a little more balanced.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Bonner\u2019s dedication to the legal profession and his community isn\u2019t in doubt. He has interned at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, served as a judge pro tem in small claims court and has taken classes in mediation.\u00a0<\/p>\n Yet despite being a well-respected attorney who could also make an excellent judge, we came away wondering if he wouldn\u2019t first benefit from more experience outside his family\u2019s firm.\u00a0<\/p>\n Selia Warren\u2019s experience as Oakland deputy city attorney is a solid stepping stone to being a judge.<\/p>\n Lea Suzuki\/S.F. Chronicle<\/p>\n Seat 19<\/p>\n For Seat 19, we endorse Oakland Deputy City Attorney Selia Warren.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School in 2004, Warren began her career as a civil litigator at private firms in Los Angeles. In 2015, she began working for the city of Oakland, handling a wide range of cases, including land use, real estate, labor disputes, transportation and public works. Two years later, she successfully argued a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco<\/a> for which she was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. Since 2016, she has served on the Alameda County Civil Service Board and has also helped lead fundraising efforts for the Alameda County Community Food Bank.\u00a0<\/p>\n Warren\u2019s ambition to be regarded as a top legal mind came through in our interview, and other judges we spoke with noted that the position of deputy city attorney has been a solid stepping stone to becoming an effective Superior Court judge.\u00a0<\/p>\n Measured and thoughtful while delivering succinct yet detailed answers to our questions, she boasts impressive endorsements from sitting Superior Court judges and the Alameda County Democratic Party, as well as political support from several Oakland City Council members and labor groups like the\u00a0Service Employees International Union.<\/p>\n Warren\u2019s opponent, Administrative Law Judge Patricia Miles, has even more lengthy legal experience. After starting a private practice in San Francisco in 1988, she served six years as senior staff counsel for the Hartford insurance company and another six as senior litigation counsel for the California Public Employees\u2019 Retirement System. For the past 13 years, she has been an administrative law judge, hearing often-complex cases brought before the California Public Utilities Commission.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m already doing the work of a judge. I\u2019d just like to change my focus to the local community,\u201d Miles, who described herself as \u201cvery pro-law-and-order,\u201d told us.\u00a0<\/p>\n Miles has been endorsed by several sitting judges on the Superior Court. She is highly intelligent and clearly qualified for the position. But she lacks the broader community visibility and support of Warren. She lives outside of the county and didn\u2019t raise the necessary funds to appear in the official voter guide.\u00a0<\/p>\n The editorial positions of The Chronicle, including election recommendations, represent the consensus of the editorial board, consisting of the publisher, the editorial page editor and staff members of the opinion pages. Its judgments are made independent of the news operation, which covers the news without consideration of our editorial positions.<\/p>\n In our endorsement interview, Miles noted that she doesn\u2019t vote for Superior Court judges \u201cif I don\u2019t know who they are.\u201d<\/p>\n By her own standard, she has more work to do to earn the support of voters.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n