Civic Engagement Taskforce Candidates Forum: (Judicial Nominees, LA Community College District, Congress)

October 26th, 2024, a group called the Civic Engagement Taskforce hosted a Candidates Forum at the Culver City American Legion Hall.

Candidates for LA County Superior Court, Congress, and LA Community College Board showed up to make their case for office.

I really liked the opportunity to question and scrutinize the judicial nominees, since all too often they are overlooked or dismissed as unimportant, when judicial officers serve a very important role in Los Angeles County. Even if LA County residents elect a strong district attorney (which they most likely will this year), his efforts and the work of his deputy district attorneys can still be thwarted by liberal, woke, or rogue judges who ignore the law and push their own preferences.

The event started out with a great show of patriotism and respect for our country: Pacific Palisades Scouts Troop 223, led by third-year Scout Bryce Young. Unfortunately, I arrived, late, so I could not see the show of colors or the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of the audience appreciated the service of these young men, so I know that they started the event on good footing.

Hope Howell began the event laying down the ground rules for the debate/discussion among the different candidates:

                    

 and here:

              

I will post specific comments regarding the candidates and their comments in the next posts.

For now, I just want to give a general overview of the forum.

1. Some of the candidates showed up late, and many of the invited candidates did not show up at all. I do not blame the Civic Engagement Taskforce for that outcome. Too many candidates, especially for countywide office, seem to think that answering questions and engaging with the public is beneath them.

That is really shameful, and LA County voters should start expecting more from their elected officials, and from all their candidates.

2. Hope Howell and the rest of the Taskforce team did a great job running the debate. They made sure that every person had a chance to speak. The only criticism I would offer is that they should provide placards indicating how much time each candidate has left to give their answers.

3. The judicial nominees were unusually candid in many of their answers, but also disturbingly uninformed for other answers. In order to run for judicial office in California, a candidate must have been a member of the state bar for at least ten years. It's a growing concern that many lawyers, and thus judicial nominees, are not prepared for running courtrooms or have a weaker understanding of case law than previous generations.

4. Nancy Pearlman was very entertaining and honest in her bid for LA Community College Board, even if I found her views too left-wing for my support. Of course, I don't live in that Community College district, so I was not going to vote for her. I did find her honesty very refreshing.

5. Melissa Toomim was prepared and consistent in her delivery. Like Nancy Pearlman, her opponent for office did not show up to the debate, so she could make the case for herself without any challenges.

6. Some of the audience members suggested after the event that the judicial nominees offered uninformed or even incriminating remarks because the audience was not as large as they expected. That unintended audience certainly works in the voters' favor!