A former attorney for a now-defunct Upland law firm that represented police officers and gained notoriety for alleged unethical conduct has drawn scrutiny for running for Superior Court judge in two California counties.
In San Bernardino County, Rancho Cucamonga resident Dieter Carlos Dammeier, now an administrative law judge who is currently not practicing law, faces Michelle Lauron, a supervising deputy district attorney, in Tuesday’s primary election.
And in Merced County, Dammeier also is seeking a seat on the bench, facing two attorneys in another judicial office without an incumbent on the ballot.
Dammeier, 55, an administrative law judge for the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board in Rancho Cucamonga, said he had considered running for Superior Court judge in Los Angeles County, where he withdrew nomination papers but never completed the process because he changed his mind.
Dammeier’s bid for office in two counties prompted rebuke from the San Bernardino County Supervising Deputy District Attorneys Association, which has endorsed Lauron.
Douglas Poston, a spokesman for the association, said he has never seen someone run for judicial office in two different counties in the same election.
“It’s certainly not a good look. I think it’s very misleading to the public in both counties,” said Poston, a supervising deputy district attorney at the Morongo Basin office in Joshua Tree.
In an interview, Dammeier explained why he entered the race in California’s Central Valley, saying his son plans to attend UC Merced.
“I figured why not throw my hat in?” he said.
Loopholes in law
California law is murky about whether a candidate is allowed to seek more than one public office at the same time, a loophole that prompted a legal challenge last year by Assemblymember Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield. Fong sued Secretary of State Shirley Weber after she blocked his attempt to run for a congressional seat while simultaneously seeking reelection to the Assembly.
Weber cited a section of the Elections Code that prohibits any candidate from filing nomination papers for more than one office at the same election.
But Fong argued in his petition that the law has not been applicable since 2010, when the state eliminated party nominations and implemented a system allowing the top two vote-getters to advance to the general election regardless of their party affiliation. A Sacramento Superior Court judge sided with Fong, but noted in her ruling that it “defies common sense to find the law allowing a candidate to run for two offices during the same election.”
Dammeier said that when he was challenged on the issue, he consulted with Fong’s attorney, Brian Hildreth, who concluded that running for judge simultaneously in both counties was a “non-issue.”
Closing loopholes
Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz, and Wendy Carrillo, D-Los Angeles, introduced bills in January to close the loophole in election law.
Pellerin’s Assembly Bill 1784 would clarify that a person is prohibited from filing nomination papers for more than one office in the same election. Carrillo’s AB 1795 would allow a candidate to file for a second office only in a race where a filing deadline was extended because an incumbent declined to file. In such cases, however, the proposed law would automatically force the candidate to withdraw his or her candidacy from the first office.
In a news release, Carrillo said the “glaring loophole in our electoral system” allows a candidate to contest multiple offices simultaneously, potentially leading to an elected position being vacated and triggering an expensive special election if the candidate wins both offices.
Pellerin described Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne WL Chang’s conclusion in the Fong case as contrary to how California secretaries of state from both major political parties and nonpartisan local county election officials have interpreted the law for decades.
As for residency issues, Dammeier said state law allows candidates to run for judicial office in any county, so long as they reside in California.
In 1995, the state Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion concluding that any state laws restricting the residency of judges were unenforceable, as the California constitution provides no such provision, said Marcia Godwin, a professor of public administration at the University of La Verne.
Ballot challenges
Beyond the issue of running for two offices in the same election, Dammeier was challenged both for the name and occupation he attempted to use on the ballot.
Lauron, his sole opponent in San Bernardino County, filed a complaint with the registrar of voters in December after Dammeier initially used the name “Carlos Dammeier” on the ballot instead of his full name. She also opposed his ballot designation as “Administrative Law Judge, State of California.”
The registrar determined that his full name, “Dieter Carlos Dammeier,” should appear on the ballot and his occupation should be listed as “Administrative Law Judge, State of California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.”
In Merced County, however, Dammeier will still appear on the ballot as “Carlos Dammeier,” which drew criticism from Poston of the district attorney association.
“It certainly is a thing that raises some eyebrows. I’ve never seen a candidate do that either,” Poston said. “I don’t know why someone would choose to use an apparent Hispanic name other than to convince the voters that the candidate was of Hispanic origin.”
Dammeier said using the name “Carlos” was not a strategic move to bolster the Latino vote, although he did like to embrace his Latino heritage.
“I tried using just Carlos in San Bernardino but they wanted my full name,” Dammeier said. “Carlos is a more familiar name than Dieter.”
Past controversy
Dammeier was once a partner at the Upland-based firm Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir, which represented police officers and police unions.
The firm began dissolving in 2013 amid allegations of fraudulent billing practices. It lost one of its largest clients, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, and its 99,000 members after a forensic audit uncovered triple-billing, bogus travel expenses and “serious acts of misconduct.”
In 2018, the defunct law firm paid $607,500 to settle a lawsuit alleging it had hired a private investigator to illegally plant a GPS device on a car belonging to the mayor of Costa Mesa.
Dammeier’s firm also was accused of having an investigator falsely report to police that a Costa Mesa council member was driving drunk. The DUI incident triggered investigations by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office as well as the FBI.
In 2017, one of Dammeier’s investigators was sentenced to a year in prison after pleading guilty to planting the GPS device. No charges were filed against any lawyers or police officers.
Dammeier said he was never found culpable for any of the alleged misconduct.
“All the stuff from 2013 was investigated and I wasn’t found culpable for any of it,” he said.
Dammeier said he remains undecided what he will do if he wins judicial seats in both counties.
“I would have to discuss it with my wife,” he said. “A big factor is if my kid ends up at UC Merced as planned or goes elsewhere.”
Staff writer Tony Saavedra contributed to this report.