San Bernardino judges hold seats against well-funded opponents

Two challenged San Bernardino County judges in races with considerable special interest spending have held onto their seats, but their victories weren't landslides typical of incumbents.

The judges also were well funded by fellow bench officers.

Judge Stanford E. Reichert beat Deputy District Attorney David Tulcan by about 7.5% in a race that appeared to start with a wealthy real estate developer losing a case before the judge and funding his opponent. Meanwhile, Judge Joel S. Agron in Joshua Tree beat out prosecutor Jason Liso by about 10% in Tuesday's voting.

Although both judges received financial backing from the California Judges Association, their opponents were backed by considerable money from one real estate developer and another PAC born out of the Colonies case, an 11-year corruption prosecution by the state and county that ended with no convictions, wrongful prosecution lawsuits and the ouster of the district attorney in 2018 elections. "I plan on continuing the job I was chosen to do," said Agron, who said he was exhausted from being up all night checking results. "I didn't sleep much."

Liso, his opponent, did not return a request for comment. He was backed by about $85,000 in contributions, most of it from the San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association Prosecutors PAC, other law enforcement groups, and real estate developer Jimmy Previti, according to Secretary of State campaign finance records.

REICHERT

Previti, owner of Frontier Homes, also donated about $182,000 to defeat Reichert through his various companies and associates, according to those records.

"I did not have any expectations about the race going in, other than I hoped to win," said Reichert in an email. "I am pleased that the voters have allowed me to continue serving the community."

In a statement, Tulcan said, "I'm very proud of my campaign which focused on improving the superior court to make our communities safer. I believe that judges should be accountable to the public, just like any other elected government official. ... My commitment is to protect public safety and ensure justice for the victims of crime. I will continue working to achieve these goals as a deputy district attorney."

Tulcan did not respond when asked if Previti requested he run.

Reichert, on the bench for about 15 years, previously told the Daily Journal Previti had personal animosity toward him for the way he ruled in a guardianship case. Previti sought custody for a family member, but the judge said he had no jurisdiction to grant guardianship.

The judge ended up drawing a challenger in Tulcan, who called Reichert "erratic," "eccentric" and said his overturned rulings were a waste to taxpayers. Tulcan, in a previous interview with the Daily Journal, did not provide details about his allegations.

"It came as a surprise," said the judge. "My opponent is being financed by a disgruntled litigant with very deep pockets. In my court, politics has never, and never will, affect any of my decisions. My decisions are based strictly on the facts and the law and nothing else."

Both Tulcan and the judge ended up receiving more than $200,000, according to campaign finance records.

The California Judges Association, which contributed $20,000 to Reichert and $25,000 to Agron through JetPAC Judicial Excellence Together, said it was proud of the campaigns the judges ran.

"Judges aren't politicians, but they have to raise money no matter how unjustified the challenge is," California Judges Association President B. Tam Nomoto Schumann said in a statement. "CJA is also proud to have assisted these excellent judges through CJA's political action committee: Judicial Excellence Together PAC. JetPAC exists to help alleviate the need for judges to solicit campaign contributions and to maintain the impartiality of the California courts."

In late vote counting Wednesday, Inyo County Superior Court Judge Brian J. Lamb, one of two judges in the county, who was challenged for his seat a second time in a three-way race, trailed behind challenger Susanne Marie Rizo, a child support services director with experience as a prosecutor. She has criticized Lamb for three admonishments by the California Judicial Performance for tardiness in clearing his cases.

In Los Angeles County, prosecutors won most of the nine open races while three appeared to be headed to a runoff in November.

The highest vote-getter was Deputy District Attorney Emily Cole, who routed Judge Mike Cummins, a one-time judge who changed his first name to "Judge" and lives in San Louis Obispo County. She won by 83%.

Cole, who has been a deputy district attorney for 12 years, most recently handling sex crimes, said she wants to take a more "holistic" approach to cases by balancing rehabilitation and incarceration.

"Defendants with mental health issues have exploded," Cole told the Daily Journal at the outset of the campaign. "Until they get the help they need, they're going to keep committing crimes."

Troy Slaten, a criminal defense attorney who ran an aggressive campaign against prosecutor Adan Montalban, lost his race by almost 27%. He criticized Montalban for his conduct in two prosecutions. A frequent talking head on cable news, Slaten called himself "a former prosecutor" when his experience totaled a couple jury trials as a law clerk.

Runoffs will occur in Office 72 between prosecutor Steve Morgan and law clerk and professor Myanna Dellinger; Office 80 between prosecutor David Berger and Administrative Law Judge Klint James McKay; and prosecutor Scott Andrew Yang and attorney David D. Diamond.

Three prosecutors were on the ballot unchallenged. They are deputy district attorneys Shannon Cooley, daughter of former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, Kelly Kelley, and Lana Kim. In Office 42, Deputy Attorney General Linda S. Sun beat Deputy District Attorney Robert L. Villa.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Randolph M. Hammock, who closely follows judicial elections, weighed in on the pros and cons in comments Wednesday. "On one hand, sometimes the best candidate doesn't win, or more problematic, someone is elected who is not qualified to be a judge, either intellectually and/or ethically," Hammock said in an email.

"On the other hand, judicial elections are by their own nature transparent, in stark contrast to the appointment process," he continued.

And Hammock's one hot take from election day was: "While Tuesday's results may reflect the former points in some of these races, I am pleased that the voters of Los Angeles County saw through the shenanigans of the ill-fated candidacy of Judge Michael Cummins. Let's give the voters more credit. It's called democracy. We need more of it, not less."