The Orange County Register
By Frank Mickadeit
March 25, 2008

Judicial candidate Michael Bartlett will have to change more on his ballot statement than his family history. But he won’t have to change everything his opponent, Nick Thompson, wants him to.

In a hearing yesterday that had some weird moments — such as a struggle to prove the Lincoln Club is a partisan group — Judge Corey Cramin edited Bartlett’s ballot statement in time to get it to the printer.

Thompson and Bartlett are running for the same Superior Court seat. Thompson sued Bartlett, challenging a handful of assertions Bartlett made on his ballot statement. The one I’ve had the most fun with — that California Gov. Washington Bartlett was Michael Bartlett’s great-great-great grandfather — was essentially decided already by an Anaheim Hills genealogist who determined the late governor was really his great-great uncle.

So in court yesterday, Thompson asked the judge to make other findings.

Like to eliminate the word “overwhelmingly” from Bartlett’s contention that, “Judges, police, crime victims, and elected officials overwhelmingly support me because I will be a fair, no-nonsense judge who will follow the law — not make it.”

The definition of “overwhelmingly” Cramin said he favored was “mostly by far.” The five judges, two cops and perhaps 30 elected officials who have endorsed Bartlett don’t constitute “overwhelmingly.” There are about 110 judges in the O.C. Superior Courts alone, plus hundreds of elected officials and thousands of cops. In fact, if anyone has “overwhelming” support, it is Thompson. Cramin ruled the use of the word was “false and misleading.”

Thompson also got Cramin to delete the reference to Bartlett’s membership in the Lincoln Club, under the Election Code section that forbids including “partisan political organizations” in the statement.

Proving the Lincoln Club partisan would seem like proving the pope Catholic, but there was unexpectedly mighty struggle to do this. Cramin would not accept on its face the notion that because a lot of Republicans belong to it (as Cramin himself once did) that it is “partisan.”

The judge all but ordered Bartlett to the stand, saying, “Let’s see if he denies the Lincoln Club is a partisan political organization.” And Bartlett gave it a shot, testifying that he wasn’t asked what party he belonged to and has never been told members must be Republican.

(And they don’t. After the hearing, I called club executive Clare Climaco, who sent me this statement: “You do not have to be registered Republican…Nor is the club restricted from endorsing non-Republicans in races. Our members must support ‘good government’ as defined by the principles of limited government and promotion of free enterprise.”)

This is essentially what Bartlett testified, but, I dunno, it didn’t sound terribly persuasive to me and apparently wasn’t for Cramin either. He struck the reference.

But Cramin did not make Bartlett remove other statements Thompson challenged, such as that, as judge, Bartlett “will be honored to continue my public service …” That’s misleading, Thompson’s attorney, Bruce Peotter, argued, because Bartlett last worked as a public employee in 1980.

Cramin also sided with Bartlett by refusing to alter his statement that he is endorsed by “50+ judges, local elected officials, law enforcement, lawyers, civic leaders.” Thompson had said that made it sound like 50 judges endorse Bartlett.

So a split decision. But most importantly, what are voters to take away from this?

Bartlett’s attorney,Wayne Gross, argued that Cramin was being asked to censor “political speech” and that what’s at issue isn’t “a grammar assignment.” In other words, courts must tread lightly in this area.

As a matter of law, I agree. But as a matter of politics and communications, I would advise extreme caution among judicial candidates.

Bartlett has an uphill fight simply because his ballot designation will be “business lawyer/litigator,” while Thompson’s will be “deputy district attorney.”

To win judicial races, private attorneys like Bartlett must do everything they can to emphasize what ties they have to law enforcement and government service. It’s unfortunate civil law isn’t more valued by the O.C. electorate, but it isn’t.

The question is, in a race in which judgment and accuracy literally define the job, how far can a candidate afford to push it?