League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Los Angeles County, CA June 8, 2010 Election
	Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues Judge-Superior Court; County of Los Angeles; Office 73

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County and asked of all candidates for this office.     See below for questions on Qualifications, Reason for Running, Experiences and Personal Qualities Click on a name for candidate information.   See also more information about this contest. 1. Please provide a brief list of your qualifications in bullet format, using an asterisk (*) to represent a bullet. (No more than 25 words for this section.) Answer from Laura A. Matz: Judge, Superior Court, 2000-present Judge, Glendale Municipal Court, 1996-2000 Pro Tem Assignments, Court of Appeal, 1999, 2001 Attorney, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, 1984-1996 Answer from Marvin G. Fischler: 27 Years as a Attorney Judge Pro Tem Mediator and Arbitrator Volunteer to Various Community Organizations Order of the Coif Eagle Scout 2. Why are you running for Superior Court Judge? (No more than 75 words total for questions 2 and 3.) Answer from Marvin G. Fischler: To bring a fresh outlook to the bench, and give back to our society. To respond to a growing sense of dissatifaction by the public that justice is not available to all. Answer from Laura A. Matz: I want to continue serving the people as Judge. 3. What experiences and personal qualities best equip you to serve as judge? (No more than 75 words total for questions 2 and 3.) Answer from Marvin G. Fischler: I have over 27 years in law in many different legal fields, and have served as a judge pro tem, mediator and arbitrator. I am a three dimensional thinker, which will allow me to bring a new prespective to the bench and to promote justice. Answer from Laura A. Matz: As judge for 13+ years, I have presided over 150+ criminal and civil trials, managed a caseload of 550+ cases, and twice served on assignment to the Court of Appeal. In a March 2010, article in the Metropolitan News, I was described as fair, decisive and understanding by lawyers and as "extraordinarily competent" with a "reputation for making fair, well-balanced decisions" by the Court's Presiding Judge. The Los Angeles Times has written that "voters should keep Matz," calling her an "outstanding judge [who] is being challenged for no good reason." Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Until 5:00 p.m. on April 5, 2010, candidates for Superior Court Judge must limit their answers to 100 words total for all questions so that a paper Voters Guide may be published. Specific word limits are as follows: 25 words for question 1; 75 words total for questions 2 and 3. After 5:00 p.m. on April 5, 2010, word limits will no longer apply. The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.