JUDGES RACES SUFFER FROM OBSCURITY.

Byline: Erik N. Nelson Staff Writer

Superior Court judges can decide death penalty cases, award millions of dollars in lawsuits and determine whether a parent is fit to care for a child. But ordinary voters with little or no knowledge of their qualifications will decide March 5 who among 21 candidates will fill seven of those jobs in Los Angeles County courtrooms.

This year's contest is unique in that it is the first time judges who used to preside over former Municipal Courts are required to run for re- election countywide in a new, consolidated court system.

``It's an electoral crap shoot, is what it is,'' said longtime political consultant Larry Levine. ``You file for the office, and hopefully you've got the right-sounding name and nobody else files against you who's got a better-sounding name or a better ballot title.''

Such considerations become important, political handicappers say, because few candidates can afford to reach a meaningful number of voters when the cost of a countywide political campaign runs a minimum of a half-million dollars.

Even the cost of a candidate's statement on the ballot is prohibitively expensive at $26,000, Levine said - and that's only for the English-language version. The cost is higher for it to appear in more than one language. This year, only two candidates for judge bought statements.

Candidates must choose to run for a particular judicial seat, which has no bearing on whether the winner will serve in Lancaster, Long Beach or some courtroom between. Most candidates vie for vacated seats, but some, such as a Newhall judge's challenger, are trying to oust incumbents.

In each race, a candidate can win outright by garnering more than 50 percent of the votes March 5, or else the two top vote-getters will meet in a Nov. 5 runoff.

Winners will be assigned to a particular county courthouse after the election, depending in part on where the winner lives and where judges are needed.

By some evaluations, one of the contests is between two men who aren't qualified to serve. Another race, according to the Los Angeles County Bar Association, is a choice between an experienced judge of many years and a lawyer who is merely ``qualified.''

But judges' races tend to get lost in the shuffle of high-profile campaigns for governor, Congress and state Legislature.

Perhaps the most interesting race is the challenge of a sitting judge in Newhall.

Voters will choose between 16-year incumbent Municipal Court judge- turned-Superior Court Judge Floyd Baxter and temporary court commissioner Ross Stucker, who has practiced law since 1979.

Although Baxter received the Bar Association's best rating of ``well qualified,'' he has been criticized by a Los Angeles legal newspaper, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, for his involvement in the hiring of his former legal partner as a court commissioner as well as his decision to jail a motorist charged with hitting a parked car and failing to leave a note.

Baxter called the criticism a ``hatchet job'' and said he was one of many people involved in the commissioner's hiring and that his hit-and-run decision was backed up by state law.

Stucker, who is highly critical of Baxter's performance on the bench, was one of the unsuccessful applicants for the commissioner job.

Here is a rundown of other Superior Court races, with their Bar Association ratings in parentheses. Judges who were unopposed for re-election will not be on the March 5 ballot:

For vacant office No. 2, the candidates are Santa Monica elder-care attorney

Joseph ``Joe'' Deering (Well Qualified); Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg (Well Qualified), who works in the District Attorney's Training Division downtown; and Encino administrative law judge Donald Renetzky (Qualified), who presides over cases brought before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in Van Nuys.

For vacant office No. 39, the candidates are attorney Larry Layton, who owns and runs an Acton law school; Deputy District Attorney Richard Naranjo, a county prosecutor in Lancaster; and Deputy District Attorney Craig Renetzky, who is assigned to a narcotics task force. All three were rated Qualified.

For vacant Office No. 53, the candidates are Covina attorney H. Don Christian (Well Qualified); Baldwin Park family and criminal law attorney of 24 years Richard Espinoza (Qualified); Los Angeles attorney of 17 years Robert Harrison (Qualified), who also serves as a hearing officer for Los Angeles Police Commission disciplinary hearings and teaches aspiring paralegals at the University of Southern California; and Head Deputy District Attorney in charge of Central Trials Lauren Weis (Well Qualified), a prosecutor for 23 years and the only female candidate.

For Office No. 67, the candidates are Paul Baciagalupo (Well Qualified), an attorney and judge of the state bar; attorney of 16 years David Crawford III, who does litigation for the insurance firm Zurich North America; Deputy District Attorney David Gelfound, an attorney for 12 years who now works with the District Attorney's Hardcore Gang Unit; and attorney of 18 years Steven Lubell, a Superior Court commissioner since 1999 in Glendale and faculty member of the San Fernando Valley School of Law.

For Office No. 90, incumbent of 14 years Robert Simpson (Well Qualified) faces a challenge from Glendale attorney of 13 years Kenneth Wright (Qualified), who specializes in litigation.

For office No. 100, the candidates are Van Nuys administrative law judge John Gutierrez (Qualified), who works for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in Van Nuys; Van Nuys prosecutor Richard Walmark (Qualified); and Encino trial attorney of 30 years Thomas Warden (Not Qualified), who specializes in family law and personal injury cases.