Elizabeth Tucker and Gerald Pfohl on their judicial philosophy – Press Enterprise

Riverside County voters have their pick of two candidates running to serve as a judge, Elizabeth Tucker and Gerald Pfohl. Here, we present the responses of both candidates to written endorsement surveys to help voters better understand how the candidates think. Full disclosure, this editorial board has endorsed in this race.

How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Elizabeth Tucker: I do my best to carry out the intent of the legislature when applying laws to situations that arise in my courtroom. At times I have read the legislative history to determine what the legislatures intended when they passed a certain law. I do not believe it is a judge’s job to create law, that is for the legislative branch. I am well prepared for court and give everyone who appears before me the opportunity to be heard. I treat every person who appears in front of me with dignity and respect.

Gerald Pfohl: My judicial philosophy is simple: it is the promise to follow the law and to treat everyone with fairness while sitting with a temperament that inspires confidence in the bench. First and foremost, fairness to everyone. Our system of laws does not work if there is hint of partiality. Second, respect for the law and the individual circumstances of every case and every person. Every juror, who serves as a judge of the facts, takes a oath to render a verdict based only upon the evidence presented and the law as it is instructed. A judicial officer must be bound by the same expectations. Frequently, a judge’s decision-making will be in circumstances not governed by statute or evidence, but instead the individualized assessment of human circumstances. If trials are a search for the truth, justice is a search reasonableness and balance. Third, I have the responsibility to be prepared and even-tempered. When I first announced my decision to run for this seat, I was contacted by numerous defense attorneys who were thrilled to hear my choice. The most common reasons I heard was because they knew I would work to make the right decisions and because they could come into my courtroom and feel like the respect they paid to the court would be returned to them.

Does a judge’s personal politics, whether liberal, conservative or something else, affect her or his rulings and courtroom?

Elizabeth Tucker: Judges are human beings and I believe it is inevitable, whether consciously or unconsciously, that their personal politics would have some effect on their rulings. However, a judge must be mindful of potential influences in their decisions and do their best to place aside any preconceived ideas that surround situations.

Gerald Pfohl: A judge’s personal politics have absolutely no place in affecting how he or she decides the law and hears matters in the courtroom. Judicial rulings must be made with integrity and completely impartially. Every member of the public needs to know that the law is being applied without bias, ensuring that justice is administered fairly to everyone. The principle of impartiality is a foundation of our rule of law. Even the appearance of a judge allowing political considerations to influence decision-making risks undermining the public trust in the judiciary. It should be noted though that our society has become so politically polarized that a critic of a ruling may blame politics or other influences without truly analyzing the decision for its propriety. Nonetheless, judicial independence is a necessity to truly provide equal protection under the law.