This year's Democrat judicial primary contests carry out-sized importance for Party
Judicial
races are often the proverbial red-headed stepchildren of the ballot.
They come “down-ballot”, near the end of an often long list of
races. Voters who have trudged to the polls often are tired of
thinking and trying to remember who their neighbor told them they
should vote for. The seven or eight minutes worth of time they’ve
already spent making sure their pencil marks were correctly placed
has them feeling like impatient schoolchildren, eager to finish up
and go outside. So they either skip the last few races or stab at
familiar names.
That
kind of voter behavior means we often wind up with inferior judges on
the bench.
We
stirred up a hornet’s nest a few months ago when
we
pulled the lid off the judicial endorsement process
of the County Democratic Party and took a look at the four open seats
on
the county court,
i.e., those races where there is no incumbent on the ballot this
year. What
often appears a mysterious anointment of a few coveted judicial slots
by hands unseen is this year a no-holds barred battle among lawyers
eager to cap their careers or launch themselves into public office.
And the results of their efforts will likely affect the course of the
county party for the next few years.
Each
of the four open races carries its own peculiar dynamic. Two of the
races are head-to-head battles, one has three candidates, and the
other has six contestants.
Voters
should be aware that in several of the races there is at least one
candidate who appears to be running more on a favorable ballot name
than on a solid record of professional accomplishment. In that
regard, we are providing a link to each candidate’s judicial
questionnaire as submitted to www.judge4yourself.com,
an independent, nonpartisan evaluation service operated jointly by
four local bar associations. Their process is not perfect, but can
serves as a useful aid for the thoughtful voter.
With
early voting having started April 10, there are just over three weeks
until Primary Election Day, May 8.
Here
are some observations voters may find helpful:
William
T. McGinty vs. Andrew J. Santoli
 |
| Andre J. Santoli |
 |
| William T. McGinty |
This
race is a study in contrasts. Santoli,
38,
is a career prosecutor who has been running for the better part of
two years. He
has the backing of the Bill Mason-Marcia Fudge machine, which
shouldn’t necessarily be held against him. He has a solid 3.0
ranking [out of a possible 4] from judge4yourself.com.
McGinty,
65, entered the race at the filing deadline. His career has been
primarily focused on criminal defense, although he has served as
Fairview Park law director for the past two years. He would be
limited to one term if elected. He is not related to former county prosecutor Tim McGinty.
McGinty
was preferred by judge4yourself.com with a 3.5 rating. Santoli is
endorsed by the county party and the Plain Dealer.
In
our opinion, either candidate could serve commendably. It may be a
matter of personal preference for the voter, with Santoli’s youth,
prosecutor’s orientation, and organizational backing vs. McGinty’s
end-of-career perspective and broader experience.
Emily
Hagan vs. Michael Rendon vs. Retanio A. J. Rucker
 |
| Retanio A. J. Rucker |
I
have known Retanio Rucker’s family since before he was born.
I can attest that he was raised by good and loving folk who practiced
solid American values. He has served conscientiously as a magistrate
in Juvenile Court for eleven years. He has an authoritative,
no-nonsense manner on the bench. If elected, he would bring needed
diversity to the court as an African American male jurist.
Rucker,
58, laid an egg before judge4yourself.com, earning a dismal 0.5
rating. I suspect the ranking reflects his assertive personality
more than anything else. I am confident he could handle the
transition from juvenile court magistrate to the Court’s General
Division.
 |
| Emily Hagan |
Emily
Hagan,
40, has one of the thinnest resumes imaginable for a judicial
candidate. She does not appear ever to have had the kinds of
experience one would expect a trial court judicial candidate to have
obtained. She
enjoys the backing of the old guard, including Mason-Fudge, likely
because her uncle is a former county commissioner and one-time head
of the party. Judge4yourself.com found her “adequate” with a 2.0
across the board. Still, it was a surprise to many when she failed to
win the party’s endorsement, largely because the process had become
overtly racialized.
 |
| Michael J. Rendon |
But
Michael
Rendon,
60,
is far and away the superior candidate in this race. Take
a look at his background and you will see a breath and depth to
his professional and life experiences that make him ideal as a
judicial candidate. I was surprised and delighted to see that he was
a U.S. border guard for four years. His military background, Hispanic
heritage, and rich experience combine to render him head and
shoulders above the field. Judge4yourself.com
concurs, giving him a perfect 4.0 rating.
Tomorrow
we look at the other two judicial races that have challenged the
black political establishment and will likely have far-reaching
consequences regardless of who become the nominees.
