Alameda Superior Court judicial candidates Selia Warren and Michael Johnson have the experience and temperament to be judges.

Few ballot decisions are more vexing for California voters than nonpartisan, county elections for Superior Court judges.

The vast majority of the more than 1,750 judges who serve in that capacity are appointed by the governor. Vetting for these appointments is exhaustive.

Get Digital Access and Stay Informed With Trusted Local News.

Get Digital Access and Stay Informed With Trusted Local News.

Candidates must submit a list of 50 people they’ve worked with — including legal opponents they’ve faced in court — to the state Judicial Nominees Evaluation Committee, which then conducts a months-long background check into character, health, temperament and experience.

Article continues below this ad

Meanwhile, the governor’s office also relies on local bar associations to rank candidates anywhere from “not qualified” to “extremely qualified” based on their reputation in the community and aptitude for the law.

So, if California has an exacting process for selecting qualified judges, why do these positions still occasionally show up on your ballot?

See more S.F. Chronicle on Google

Voters get involved in only two instances: when an incumbent judge is challenged at the conclusion of a six-year term and when a vacancy occurs that the governor has not yet filled.

The Chronicle editorial board has begun rolling out its endorsements for California’s June primary election. In the weeks to come, we will publish our assessments of all the state races, including the governor’s race, plus local races and ballot measures. To read more about how the editorial board makes its election endorsements, go here.Plus: Look out for the Chronicle’s Voter Guide to publish in early May, as ballots get mailed out across the Bay Area.

Article continues below this ad

That doesn’t happen often. But when it does, voters have to proceed without the benefit of a team of skilled lawyers conducting background checks.

County voter guides sometimes contain a 200-word introduction written by a candidate. But they can be expensive — $34,871 in Alameda County — causing some candidates to skip it. Meanwhile, the California Code of Judicial Ethics limits how much judges and judicial candidates can speak about specific cases.

Legal experts we spoke with said courtroom experience, measured temperament and community service were among the most important things to consider when voting for a judge. Unlike other political races, a judge must not allow their personal views to supersede the law. Endorsements from sitting judges can also help guide voters. 

In Alameda County this year, there are two vacant Superior Court seats, with two candidates running for each in the June election. After interviewing the candidates in person, the Chronicle’s editorial board was impressed with the qualifications and temperament of all four. Alameda County voters will be well-served regardless of who they select. That said, two candidates stood out.

Michael Johnson is an appointed judge and has legal experience in civil and criminal law.

Michael Johnson, who was appointed as a temporary Superior Court judge in 2019, is our pick to fill Seat 13 on the court. 

Johnson has extensive legal experience in the civil and criminal realms — and on the bench. Over the past seven years, he has handled traffic, small claims, civil harassment and family law cases at Alameda Superior Court, and he has earned the endorsements of several fellow judges.

Before his temporary judicial appointment, he worked as a corporate trial lawyer for AT&T, handled data privacy law for Warner Bros., ran a private practice, taught at John F. Kennedy School of Law, assisted civil rights attorney John Burris on litigation and served as general counsel for the Charles Houston Bar Association. He has also been a fixture at the NAACP’s Oakland branch, where he sits on the legal redress committee.

“I’m running for Alameda County Superior Court judge because of my 35-plus years of legal experience and deep community involvement,” Johnson told the editorial board. “I just feel compelled to bring that to bear for a higher level of public service.” 

At a time when funding cuts have impacted courtroom staffing, Johnson, who has served on the court’s Bench-Bar Coalition, has smart plans to work with the presiding judge and the judicial council to fight for a budget increase.

Johnson’s opponent, attorney Cabral Bonner, is also an experienced trial lawyer and boasts his own endorsements from sitting Alameda Superior Court judges. In 2006, after graduating from Stanford Law School, he joined his father’s law firm, where he has worked on employment discrimination, civil rights and police excessive force cases. Bonner told the editorial board that his father “has always been kind of the rainmaker” of the practice, while he handled the technical details of the caseload.

After a career advocating for clients, Bonner said, he “started to think about how I could devote my energy and my resources in a way that more fit who I am, which is a little more balanced.” 

Bonner’s dedication to the legal profession and his community isn’t in doubt. He has interned at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, served as a judge pro tem in small claims court and has taken classes in mediation. 

Yet despite being a well-respected attorney who could also make an excellent judge, we came away wondering if he wouldn’t first benefit from more experience outside his family’s firm. 

Selia Warren’s experience as Oakland deputy city attorney is a solid stepping stone to being a judge.

For Seat 19, we endorse Oakland Deputy City Attorney Selia Warren. 

After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School in 2004, Warren began her career as a civil litigator at private firms in Los Angeles. In 2015, she began working for the city of Oakland, handling a wide range of cases, including land use, real estate, labor disputes, transportation and public works. Two years later, she successfully argued a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco for which she was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. Since 2016, she has served on the Alameda County Civil Service Board and has also helped lead fundraising efforts for the Alameda County Community Food Bank. 

Warren’s ambition to be regarded as a top legal mind came through in our interview, and other judges we spoke with noted that the position of deputy city attorney has been a solid stepping stone to becoming an effective Superior Court judge. 

Measured and thoughtful while delivering succinct yet detailed answers to our questions, she boasts impressive endorsements from sitting Superior Court judges and the Alameda County Democratic Party, as well as political support from several Oakland City Council members and labor groups like the Service Employees International Union.

Warren’s opponent, Administrative Law Judge Patricia Miles, has even more lengthy legal experience. After starting a private practice in San Francisco in 1988, she served six years as senior staff counsel for the Hartford insurance company and another six as senior litigation counsel for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. For the past 13 years, she has been an administrative law judge, hearing often-complex cases brought before the California Public Utilities Commission. 

“I’m already doing the work of a judge. I’d just like to change my focus to the local community,” Miles, who described herself as “very pro-law-and-order,” told us. 

Miles has been endorsed by several sitting judges on the Superior Court. She is highly intelligent and clearly qualified for the position. But she lacks the broader community visibility and support of Warren. She lives outside of the county and didn’t raise the necessary funds to appear in the official voter guide. 

The editorial positions of The Chronicle, including election recommendations, represent the consensus of the editorial board, consisting of the publisher, the editorial page editor and staff members of the opinion pages. Its judgments are made independent of the news operation, which covers the news without consideration of our editorial positions.

In our endorsement interview, Miles noted that she doesn’t vote for Superior Court judges “if I don’t know who they are.”

By her own standard, she has more work to do to earn the support of voters.

Reach the Chronicle editorial board with a letter to the editor: www.sfchronicle.com/submit-your-opinion.

© San Francisco Chronicle