No Endorsement for S.F. Judge Race

San Francisco’s upcoming superior court election between Mary Mallen, Thomas Mellon Jr. and Gerardo Sandoval offers some clear choices. Unfortunately, we are not sufficiently enthused about any of them to make an endorsement. If forced to pick we would choose the incumbent, Mellon, but we will stop short of calling it an endorsement.

The Recorder‘s editors have been endorsing in judicial races for the last 10 years, and we have never rendered a nonendorsement before. But this year presented an especially difficult challenge. We have interviewed all three candidates (see video clips at www.callawvideo.com) and held multiple internal debates. Here is how we see it.

Mellon is a flawed jurist. One of his first assignments was family court, and by all accounts, including Mellon’s, things were rocky between him and the family bar. Of course, the same is true for many judges – family law is a notoriously difficult assignment. But a stint at the Hall of Justice went even worse. Mellon’s brusque manner – some call it flat-out rude – angered so many public defenders that he eventually was forced out of the Hall in 2000 under a hail of peremptory challenges. Since then Mellon has worked almost exclusively in civil court, and has developed a reputation as a solid trial judge. Most – though certainly not all – of the civil lawyers interviewed by The Recorder seemed to enjoy trying cases before him.

Based on all this we see Mellon as competent, though just barely. A voter who believes that no judge should be removed from the bench absent outright incompetence or corruption probably ought to vote for Mellon.

On the other hand, because of his demeanor Mellon has essentially disqualified himself from half of the court. And although he seems able at conducting civil trials, we’re not aware of any especially positive contributions he has made to the court. Asked the question, the judge himself could only point to his scrupulous respect for jurors and their time. We give him credit for that, but we frankly see that as Judging 101.

So we might be open to a challenge, but the challenger would have to make a convincing case. Unfortunately, we don’t see one.

Sandoval brings one important attribute: He would improve the S.F. court’s woeful numbers on ethnic diversity, particularly Latino diversity. Diversity has been increasing on state courts and in San Francisco, but at a glacial pace. If you’re a voter whose No. 1 priority is diversity, you probably should vote for Sandoval. We see it as one of several important qualifications, and we don’t see Sandoval scoring well on the others.

To begin with, Sandoval comes directly from legislative politics. In general, we don’t think that’s an ideal path to the bench. During our interview, for example, Sandoval stated that the S.F. courts are paying too much attention to small drug cases and instead should focus on more important mortgage fraud cases where people are being “defrauded by the hundreds, and they’re not being investigated and they’re not being prosecuted.” That might be a fine pitch for district attorney. But a judge shouldn’t be setting prosecutorial priorities.

There’s the additional problem that Sandoval is running for this position the minute he is termed out from the Board of Supervisors. It smacks of a person looking for the next possible government job, and during our interview he did not evince a passion for the nuts and bolts of judging. In a separate interview with one of our reporters, Sandoval said, “Well, what is a 46-year-old Columbia Law School-trained attorney with a passion for public service supposed to do next? Am I supposed to move to West Texas and be become a peanut farmer?” We find Sandoval’s candor admirable, but not reassuring on the point.

Sandoval has spent only five years in full-time law practice (though he has practiced part time while on the board of supes). We’d be more comfortable with Sandoval if he had taken the time to distinguish himself as an attorney – or as a neutral or as a pro tem judge – before running for the bench.