udges, not campaign managers, are making the final edits on ballot statements for judicial races in Santa Clara County.
Three candidates in two races were in court in recent days to hash out disagreements over ballot statements -- including one judge-wannabe who filed a writ to force changes to his own 250-word statement.
On Monday, Deputy Public Defender Thomas Spielbauer asked a judge to overturn an edit to his statement made by the registrar of voters.
Spielbauer was notified Dec. 21 that Acting Registrar Evonne Zamora was striking the second half of the phrase, "attorney for 23 years, twice as long as each opponent" because it made a comparison to his rivals, which is barred by election law.
Spielbauer, who unsuccessfully campaigned for a judge's seat in 2000, argued that Zamora missed the 10-day window to challenge ballot statements, which ended Dec. 20.
"The election code for judicial candidates is very specific. It says you cannot comment or make mention to any other candidate or opponent," said Deputy County Counsel Kathryn Berry, representing the registrar. "Even though this wasn't derogatory to anybody, still it is a reference to other candidates."
Spielbauer and the registrar reached a settlement in Judge Gregory Ward's courtroom Monday, replacing the challenged wording with, "Attorney for 23 years, I am the most experienced candidate."
Spielbauer, who is running against Deputy DAs Aaron Persky and Ron Del Pozzo and solo practitioner Michael Millen, said he was happy with the settlement. "This agreed-upon resolution is a very effective way of communicating I am the most experienced."
Then there's Deputy DA George Chadwick II, who dragged attorney William Priest into court just before Christmas, demanding a major overhaul of Priest's ballot statement. Technically, Jose Salcido, president of the Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Santa Clara County, challenged more than a dozen components of Priest's statement, including his listing of old endorsements.
Chadwick, who represented Salcido in court, is running against Priest and solo practitioners Ronald Berki and Arthur Bocanegra.
Priest lists that he was endorsed by the county sheriff, Salcido's group, the San Jose Police Officers' Association, judges and deputy district attorneys "last year." Priest was endorsed by these groups in the 2000 election.
Chadwick, who has been endorsed by Salcido's group and the San Jose police group this time around, said Priest's statements were misleading and would confuse voters because the endorsements are based on a different group of candidates from a prior election.
"An endorsement is a comparative assessment. It doesn't mean you are just qualified," Chadwick said.
Judge Leslie Nichols agreed and made Priest add the qualifier, "In the November 2000 election, involving different candidates."
Chadwick also challenged Priest's reference to his "unique" experience as a judge pro tem. Nichols agreed to strike "unique," but let stand other challenged parts of the statement, including where Priest calls himself a "Superior Court Attorney" and his reference to being president of the Santa Clara County Bar Association. Chadwick said "Superior Court Attorney" made it sound as if Priest worked for the court, and the SCCBA reference wasn't clearly in the past tense. Priest was SCCBA president in 1999.
Chadwick said he wrote Priest a letter and tried to work out an agreement before the hearing but said Priest wasn't amenable.
Priest disagreed Monday, saying he offered to make almost exactly the same changes the judge made.
"I thought it was pretty trivial actually. The thing about the bar president is a perfect example when I say trivial. There is nothing in it that says I am currently president," Priest said. "It was accurate before and it remains accurate, perhaps more accurate."
Priest has sent a letter to his old endorsers to announce he's running again in the March election, and that he's assuming he'll have their endorsement again unless he hears otherwise. So far, Priest said, he's only heard from one judge.
Meanwhile, Chadwick filed a writ to change the wording of his own ballot statement. In his statement, Chadwick wrote that he was accepting no campaign contributions. Judge William Martin agreed to change the language to no "monetary contributions."
Chadwick said the change was necessary because while he is accepting no cash donations, some supporters have agreed to host coffees where he can discuss his candidacy, which could be construed as a contribution.
