A white, male judicial candidate, reluctant to take on a Hispanic woman in a race for a seat on the superior court in heavily Hispanic Los Angeles County, Calif., offered her a bribe to run against someone else. That’s the gist of the state attorney general office’s case against Harvey Silberman, who won that election and now is a sitting judge.
Judicial elections were already rife with negative campaign ads and financing from outside political groups. Whether Silberman is convicted or not, his case offers something new: a glimpse into how the machinery of judicial elections has come to work, from the use of political consultants to the deal-making among the candidates. It also shows that the machine can run off the rails.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
