Every Los Angeles County resident reading this blog should vote for Amy Carter for judge on June 3. I have never been this pleased to be able to endorse a judicial candidate.
I have known Amy for over fifteen years. Aside from the wonderful Mrs. P., Amy is my favorite person in the District Attorney’s office. Mrs. P. and I are personal friends of Amy and her husband Rick. We always see eye to eye on everything, and Amy never fails to make me laugh.
I do not endorse Amy Carter because she is one of my best friends — although she is. I do not endorse her because she is a hardworking and capable Deputy District Attorney — although she is. I endorse Amy Carter because she has the perfect combination of traits that I think are important for a judge to have. It’s not just her legal knowledge, or her strong work ethic, or her even, sunny temperament that make Amy special. She is also completely down to earth — a very funny, self-deprecating person who will not let it go to her head when she puts on one of those black robes. Amy is brilliant and wonderful in every way. She will be a credit to the bench.
Amy Carter for judge
As I did with my post on Teresa Magno, I want to say a few words about Amy’s opponent. That opponent, Pamela Matsumoto, received a “well qualified” rating from the L.A. County Bar, while Amy received a “qualified” rating. As the insightful Met News says: “In our view, the County Bar has it backwards.” Indeed. So, too, do the morons at the Los Angeles Times, who endorse Amy’s opponent. (Have they ever gotten anything right?) As the Met News observes:
THERE APPEARS TO BE no inclination on the part of LACBA or the Times to hold Matsumoto to task for having forced a writ proceeding by virtue of the invalid ballot designation she claimed of “Administrative Law Judge.”
That’s something she had been, but wasn’t.
Matsomoto has been an insurance defense lawyer for months, and held that position when she chose “Administrative Law Judge” — her former position — as her ballot designation. As the Met News explains, this was a misleading designation because you’re not supposed to list a former job as your designation if you’re currently doing something else. Matsumoto had this pointed out to her, by Amy’s lawyer — yet Matsumoto refused to change the designation. Amy had to hire a lawyer and file a writ to force Matsumoto to remove the misleading designation. (In a bizarre irony, Matsumoto’s lawyer was a friend of mine at the University of Texas at Austin Law School. Sorry, Stuart, but this was a loser of an argument!)
I think it reflects poorly on Matsumoto that she tried to pretend she was something she is not. What’s more, as the Met News notes, Matsumoto’s vaunted so-called judicial experience is not all it’s cracked up to be:
As to Matsumoto’s “time on the bench,” from 2006-2012, she heard matters in the Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court, disbanded in 2012 due to deficiencies in court funding. Youngsters and their parents, often with the complaining police officer present, met with her in a small room. There was no prosecutor, no bailiff, no court reporter, no clerk, no jury, and only rarely a defense attorney. Penalties were of such nature as being required to write an essay or doing community service. Matsumoto functioned more like an assistant vice principal than a judge.
She was not an “an on-call bench officer doing much of the work of a full-time judge.” There are “as-needed referees” who do fill-in for judges, when summoned. Matsumoto was not one of them; rather, she was a fulltime IJTC referee who did a type of work that judges did not do.
While Carter was in a courtroom prosecuting perpetrators of murders and rapes, Matsumoto was sitting behind a desk counseling kids who had been caught littering, loitering, or jaywalking.
The Met News nails it, while the eternally clueless L.A. Times continues to embarrass itself.
Amy’s Web site is here. I have contributed to her campaign and encourage you to do the same. You’ll never see a more deserving candidate. Amy has my full support and confidence.