Foot-dragging by Bay Area judges and state Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office has made a mockery of legal processes designed to check abusive behavior of elected officials.

When a Santa Clara County jury last week found Laurie Smith guilty of willful and corrupt misconduct while serving as sheriff, there was collective relief that her years of wrongdoing had finally been formally recognized. But there was no sense of justice.

As the Smith case demonstrated, justice delayed is justice denied. It took nine months after a civil grand jury issued an accusation calling for the sheriff’s removal from office before the trial of her case finally began as she was finishing her term.

Similar delays afflict the ongoing case of Alameda County Supervisor David Brown, who was appointed in 2021 to a vacancy even though he had lived in the county for only four days. A court hearing on whether he should be allowed to hold office is scheduled for Dec. 6, more than a year after his legally questionable appointment and less than a month before his term expires.

And in the Contra Costa County case of Assessor Gus Kramer, it took 1½ years from when the county civil grand jury issued an accusation — calling for his removal from office for creating a hostile work environment — until his trial ended in November 2020 with a hung jury.

During that time, Kramer ran — unsuccessfully, it turned out — for county supervisor.  As voters were considering Kramer for a new post, they didn’t know whether he would keep his assessor job.

The three cases are different, but they all have one thing in common: Drawn out legal proceedings undermined the reason for bringing the cases to court in the first place — and subverted the state’s accountability laws for public officials.

Judges failed to give these cases the priority they deserve. They don’t seem to care about quick resolution of accusations of public official abuses. It’s time for state lawmakers to mandate that our courts give top priority to such cases and resolve them swiftly.

Civil grand jury cases

Smith and Kramer faced allegations under a process that can only be initiated by a civil grand jury when it issues an accusation of willful or corrupt misconduct. The only punishment, if found guilty in court, is removal from office.

The two defendants deserved due process. And the public deserved timely resolution. That didn’t happen in either case.

Indeed, Smith had so little left to lose as she neared the end of her term that she resigned her office as the jury was deliberating. It was an unsuccessful ploy to end the case so she could avoid the ignominy of the guilty verdict for steering concealed-carry weapons permits to donors and supporters, undermining state gift-reporting laws and stifling a civilian auditor’s probe into a high-profile jail-injury case.

In the Contra Costa case, as judicial delays plagued the process, Kramer in the March 2020 primary election made the runoff in a bid for county supervisor. His trial didn’t start until six days before voters in the November runoff cast their ballots and didn’t conclude with the mistrial until three days after. Jurors could not agree on whether most of the allegations constituted workplace harassment under state law or whether his conduct merited removal from office.

The judicial delays denied voters a chance to know the outcome before making their selection and denied Kramer the chance to clear his name. There would be no definitive resolution in the case, because four months later the prosecutor opted not to retry it. This year, Kramer won reelection to an eighth term as county assessor.

Attorney general delay

Brown’s case has had the most disturbing delays. Unlike the other two, the question with the Alameda County supervisor is not whether he committed willful or corrupt misconduct in office, but rather whether he was entitled to hold the office in the first place.

The facts in the case are generally not disputed; the issue is a legal one, whether the law permitted Brown’s appointment after four days of county residency. He had been chief of staff to Supervisor Wilma Chan until she was fatally struck by a car while walking her dog. In a rushed and politically orchestrated process, the Board of Supervisors in November 2021 appointed Brown to fill the remainder of Chan’s term.

A legal challenge to such an appointment can’t be brought directly to court because, in California, disputing someone’s right to hold public office requires first seeking the blessing of the state attorney general. It’s a legal process called quo warranto.

In this case, Bonta recused himself from review of the quo warranto application from the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association because he had signed a letter to the Board of Supervisors supporting Brown’s appointment. He turned the case over to his chief deputy, Venus Johnson, who sat on it for months before finally ruling in June that the case could proceed.

Since then, the case has languished in Alameda County Superior Court before Judge Michael Markman. By the time it’s resolved, the outcome, as in Smith’s case, will probably have no practical effect.

The judicial foot-dragging sends a disturbing message: Public officials can abuse their authority without consequence. The public deserves speedy resolution.