County Challenges Bathhouse Case Judge; Opponents Call It Political

Attorneys for Los Angeles County have filed a challenge seeking to prevent Superior Court Judge Jack M. Newman from ruling on the county’s attempts to impose stricter controls on gay bathhouses, a move which opponents say is based on the judge’s past ties to the Democratic Party.

An affidavit filed by Deputy County Counsel Steven Carnevale claims that Newman is prejudiced and cannot give a fair hearing to the county’s motion to require four Los Angeles-area bathhouses to institute measures intended to reduce the risk of AIDS.

While attorneys are permitted by law to challenge a judge without specific cause and such challenges are relatively common, attorneys for the gay bathhouses are seeking to block the county’s motion because they say it is politically motivated and therefore illegal. Superior Court Judge Warren Deering is expected to rule on the challenge on Monday.

Schabarum Lashes Out

The challenge was filed shortly after County Supervisor Pete Schabarum lashed out at county lawyers over Newman’s order requiring the county to launch an aggressive program to get poor and minority residents to register to vote. Schabarum, a Republican, said the ruling stemmed from Newman’s previous role as an attorney for the Democratic Party.

“The guy has a Democratic Party background out the kazoo. This guy obviously has an uncommon bias that marches to the Democratic Party,” Schabarum said.

“Clear evidence indicates that the county is seeking to disqualify Judge Newman because it attributes his judicial outlook to his past associations with the Democratic Party,” bathhouse attorney Barry Litt said in papers filed with the court opposing the challenge.

Litt cited a conversation he had with Carnevale in which the deputy county counsel told him that, based on Schabarum’s comments, the county planned to challenge Newman on the bathhouse case.

Carnevale said Friday that he could not comment on the county’s reasons for filing the affidavit. But he denied any political motivation.

‘No Evidence’

“(The opposition) basically said that we affidavited Judge Newman because of his political affiliations, and that’s inappropriate. There’s no evidence that’s the reason we affidavited him,” Carnevale said.

But in an Aug. 4 memo obtained by The Times, County Counsel De Witt Clinton told Schabarum: “Based upon our discussion, the results of the voter registration case and the events of the last week, I have instructed my staff that affidavits of prejudice will be filed against Judge Newman whenever a hearing is scheduled before him unless I personally approve otherwise.” Clinton could not be reached for comment Friday.

Judge Newman, who was out of town, also could not be reached for comment. The judge had declined to comment on Schabarum’s assertions on the voter registration case, simply pointing out that: “The Democratic Party was not a party to this case.”