By RICHARD K. DE ATLEY
The Press-Enterprise

A Riverside County judge removed from the bench by a state commission should also be removed from the June 3 ballot and barred from seeking re-election, an opposing candidate says in a lawsuit.

Deputy District Attorney John Molloy claims that Robert G. Spitzer, ordered off the bench in October by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for willful misconduct and dishonesty, is unqualified to be a judge.

The lawsuit names as defendants Riverside County Registrar Barbara Dunmore as well as Spitzer, who filed earlier this year for re-election to his old office and has qualified for the ballot. Judicial elections are countywide.

"Simply stated, (Spitzer) does not meet the minimum qualifications of a judge under the California Constitution and he must be removed as a candidate from the Riverside County ballot materials," Molloy argues in the lawsuit, filed in Riverside County Superior Court.

Molloy is one of four candidates seeking Spitzer's bench, including Spitzer. Spitzer was elected to a six-year term that ends this year, and whoever wins the race for Superior Court Office No. 18 will take the bench in January.

The other candidates who have qualified for the ballot are Riverside private lawyer John W. Vineyard and Riverside County Judicial Staff Attorney Anne M. Knighten.

Molloy argues in the lawsuit filed Monday that if Spitzer is not removed as a candidate, his ballot designation in which he describes his occupation as "Superior Court Judge" should be changed to comply with California election law.

He called the listed occupation "false and misleading because (Spitzer) is not working as a Superior Court Judge, he was removed from judicial office, and he was disqualified from acting as a judge," the lawsuit states.

Spitzer said by telephone Tuesday that he could not respond to Molloy's action, citing ethics codes that prohibit a judge from commenting on such a lawsuit.

Spitzer has filed papers with the state Supreme Court seeking a review of the commission's ruling that he should be removed from the bench.

The state's high court should grant review, Spitzer argues, because the Commission on Judicial Performance "allowed its prosecutorial objectives to take precedence over constitutional rights, procedural safeguards, and the independence of the judiciary."

Commission rules state its order of removal is not final until the state Supreme Court has acted on any petition for review. Judges are disqualified "without loss of salary" until the matter becomes final, the rules say.

State bar officials have said they will not change Spitzer's status until the state's high court rules on his appeal. His appeal was filed Dec. 28 and he filed papers as recently as March 13 in the case, court records show.

"Judge Spitzer was removed by the Commission on Judicial Performance because they found him to be an incompetent judge," Molloy said in a phone interview. "By allowing him to remain on the ballot is only helping the man to subvert the law a judge is supposed to uphold."

Robert Pepper, principal deputy county counsel for the Riverside County registrar of voters, said the lawsuit "seems like it is going to be an issue between Mr. Molloy and Mr. Spitzer. We will do whatever the court orders."

Pepper also suggested that the dispute will likely not be heard by a local court. "It appears to me it will have to be heard out of county," he said.