Letter to the Editor

J. Anthony Kline recently asked the legal community to oppose Michael Nava’s challenge of Richard Ulmer (“Viewpoint: Challenge to Ulmer Threatens Judiciary,” July 9). Kline argued that running against an otherwise competent incumbent on the basis of values or diversity amounts to a dangerous politicization of the judiciary. However, Kline justified his endorsement of just such a challenger, Kevin McCarthy, in 1996, because successive governors refused to appoint gay men and lesbians to the bench. But times have changed, according to Kline, and now “there is no void in need of being filled.”

Let’s review some facts. In 1996, McCarthy challenged Douglas Moore. Like Ulmer, Moore was a recently appointed, highly respected former corporate litigator and a Republican. Like Nava, McCarthy was a highly respected gay public interest attorney who campaigned on exceptional legal experience, community involvement and judicial diversity. Because we now have more gay men and lesbians on the bench, Kline believes the diversity argument is moot. For Kline, jeopardizing the integrity of the judiciary was justified to support McCarthy, but, this time, Nava is taking it too far.