Open Seat Judicial Primaries, Part I

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.