The lessons of the jungle aren't far from this week's race to don the black robes at  Ventura County Superior Court.

I love watching National Geographic's television program "Wild" because the animal kingdom sometimes seems to be one up on the human race.

As long as I've been watching the program, I've never seen a lion take down a bull elephant, even if the four-legged beast is up in years. I am sure there are rare examples when this happens, especially if the elephant is limping or mortally wounded.

This is why I and others were baffled when Attorney Bradley Bjelke who is a bright judicial candidate and constitutional scholar who works at a Westlake law firm, decided to challenge veteran Judge Harry Walsh --  "Papa Bull with a Bowtie," who is a well-respected justice.

There were seven judicial candidates up for reelection, including Walsh. None of the other six drew an opponent.

So, there were other candidates who had little or some courtroom experience, no name recognition and who would have a hard time raising campaign contributions.

(In Nat Geo "Wild," the lion usually goes after the weakest prey like the antelope. And it's usually the one who appears to be daydreaming standing near a waterhole and is the last one to finally figure out that the herd's collective bolt means "ruuuuun!")

There was speculation that Mr. Bjelke believed that Judge Walsh would decide that he didn't want to go through the ardous task of running for reelection and simply decide to hang up the robe and retire.

Mr. Bjelke denied it, saying age had nothing to do with his decision.

Adding that it didn't matter who his opponent was.

"I bring new life and a new vision. It's really all that I am running on. It's not about picking apart another person," he said.

It's hard to find  weaknesses in an opponent who has more than 10 years on the bench, who seems to have a law library in his head, is as sharp as a razor, and doesn't seem play favorites in his court.

(Yeah, sometimes he can be cranky on the bench. As I wrote before, the judge looks like he could be type cast to play in the role of the school teacher in the novel, "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" by James Hilton.  And, when lawyers irritate and frustrate him, he leans forward toward the bench, lowers his head and peers above the eyeglasses and bowtie and stares at them. Stares hard like they forgot to turn in an assignment.)

By his own admission, the judge said he has to work on his deportment on the bench. The Ventura Bar Association gave him a score of less than perfect score on that.

Judge Walsh said judges aren't "political animals" so they have to figure out what to say and what not to say to get reelected. Their campaign people probably tell them how to stand and pal around a bit.

I saw a glimmer of hope.

In a rare glimpse of Judge Walsh on the main floor of Hall of Justice just days before the election, I saw a bounce in his step and a very spirited mood while talking to a couple of lawyers.

I thought, wow. What a transformation. I said to myself, thanks Brad.

The judge said he took Mr. Bjelke as a serious challenger.

When Judge Walsh won the judicial race not too many people at the courthouse were surprised. But when he got the lion's share of the votes -- 80 percent of the vote - it made more than a few jaws drop.

In an email sent Wednesday, Mr. Bjelke stated: "As anyone involved in politics knows, it is difficult to win when you are outspent more than 10 to 1."

(Oh yeah, that's another thing I learned from Nat Geo. When the bull elephant charges the lion, it brings its massive body and big tusks.)

Bjelke tried to put a "Happy Face" on very lopsided defeat.

"We received nearly 17,000 votes (20% of the vote) which is a huge accomplishment and a testament to our hard work and dedication over the past 3 months," he stated in the email

The final tally was that Mr. Bjelke raised nearly $9,000 in contributions. He had nearly $8,000 in expenditures.

Judge Walsh raised $144,910 in contributions and spent nearly $98,000 in his campaign.

Walsh's top contributors were Ventura Attorneys Diane and Peter Goldenring who each contributed $1,499. Bjelke's biggest contributions were $100 donations.

The list of the judge's contributors included a Who's Who in the legal community along with many of the judicial brethren. In addition, Judge Walsh and Co. were able to get the endorsement of more than 500 lawyers.

Running for a judgeship in Ventura County takes a lot of money and time to persuade voters to oust the incumbent judge.

The judicial races simply come down to who has the most experience and the thickest and most impressive resume.

A judge or judicial candidate is limited to what he or she can say about such things as crime, abortion, gun control or the death penalty or the judge can later be recused by lawyers who end up in his or her courtroom.

Unless a sitting judge moonwalks on top of the bench during trial or if the judge catches  some serious attention from the state's Commission on Judicial Performance's disciplinary unit or gets continuously reversed by the appellate court, they're hard to take down.

It was interesting. There were rumblings at the courthouse when the race began picking up steam: "Who is this Bjelke guy?" and "Who does he think he is."

Truth to the matter is that it takes a bit of courage and a thick skin to run against a judge in Ventura County or almost anywhere else. And, when it happens, it is good.

It keeps everyone at the Hall of Justice on their toes and contributes to a healthy judicial process, and so, the residents of Ventura County benefit.

Mr. Bjelke said his passion is law and his dream is to become a judge.

He told me that he isn't sure when or if he'll run for judicial post, again. If he does and wins, I get to write the story about the "Come Back, Kid."

For now, Brad, go click on the National Geographic Channel.

In response to poor ratings by the Ventura County Bar Association's Judicial Evaluations Committee as to his qualifications to be judge,  Attorney Bradley Bjelke who is running against Judge Harry Walsh wrote:

"I made the decision not to participate in the evaluation because I want to be elected by the people--not a committee of individuals who have no accountability.  It should also be noted that one of the members of this supposed "independent" committee openly and publicly endorses my opponent. That alone discredits the entire evaluation."

 "I graduated from a top law school, worked for one of the largest law firms in the United States, and I represent sophisticated clients in complex matters and litigation.  The ratings that this committee gave me are not based on any facts and they are irresponsible and absurd.  I am confident that the voters in Ventura County will see through this nonsense and realize that this is just an attempt to discredit me to maintain the status quo.  If you want to change the way the current process works, you will vote for me and bring new life to the bench."

The committee recently concluded that Walsh is exceptionally well-qualified; Bjelke is not qualified to be on the bench.

The Bar's 13-member judicial Evaluations Committee who rated the qualifications of Walsh and Bjelke fired back on Friday, saying that Bjelke was invited on numerous occasions to participate in the judicial review process but declined to do so.

"Mr. Bjelke also alleges that the support of one member of the Committee of his opponent "discredits the entire evaluation."  Again, Mr. Bjelke is incorrect.  When this allegation surfaced shortly after the evaluations were released, the Committee's Vice Chair investigated it and concluded that it was unfounded.  The Committee member in question had been asked to endorse Judge Walsh.  He did not intend to do so.  However, a supporter of Judge Walsh placed the Committee member's name on the list of endorsers in error.  The Committee member participated in the evaluation process not ever knowing of the mistake or that his name appeared as an endorser of Judge Walsh.  Once the error was brought to the Committee member's attention, he promptly asked that his name be removed from the list of endorsers."

"What is particularly irresponsible about the timing of Mr. Bjelke's allegation is that, under the rules, he had a right to bring the situation to the attention of the Committee and to ask that the member not participate in either or both evaluations.  Mr. Bjelke chose to do nothing.  Had he acted in accordance with the rules, the mistake would have been corrected sooner.  Had he done so, based upon past experience, it also is most likely that the member voluntarily would have withdrawn from the process."

"Accordingly, while the Committee regrets the error and is disappointed that Mr. Bjelke did not raise the issue sooner, the Committee also continues to stand by the independence and integrity of its investigation and its evaluation of Mr. Bjelke." -- Joel Mark, Vice Chair Ventura County Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Committee

The Ventura County Bar Association on Wednesday released its ratings of judicial candidates Judge Harry Walsh and Attorney Bradley Bjelke.

The ratings were given by the Bar's 13-member Judicial Evaluations Committee.

Walsh is exceptionally well-qualified; Bjelke is not qualified to be on the bench, according to the committe's findings.

Candidates were rated on Professional Ability, Professional Experience, Judicial Temperament, Professional Reputation and Work Ethic/Resource Management.

The ratings scale ranged from outstanding, very good, satisfactory, below average, unsatisfactory and unknown. The overall ratings given were either Exceptional Well Qualified; Well Qualified; Qualified or Not Qualified.

        Judge Harry Walsh was rated Outstanding in the categories of Professional Ability, Professional Experience, Professional Reputation and Work Ethic/Resource Management.  He received a rating of Very Good in the category of Judicial Temperament.  Overall, Judge Walsh has been rated as Exceptionally Well Qualified for the office of Superior Court Judge.

            Bradley Bjelke was rated Unsatisfactory in the categories of Professional Ability, Professional Experience, Professional Reputation and Work Ethic/Resource Management.  He received a rating of Unknown in the category of Judicial Temperament.  Overall, Mr. Bjelke has been rated as Not Qualified for the office of Superior Court Judge. 

            Judge Walsh stated in an email that his goal is to be "outstanding" in all categories and that he had some work to do on "judicial temperament."

         "I am not going to be falsely modest.  I have been a judge for 14 years, and I think the overall rating of "Extremely Well Qualified" is accurate, and I am proud of it.  I have never made a secret that being a judge is the best job I have ever had, and I work hard to be good at it.  I was disppointed that Mr. Bjelke did not fully participate in the process.  This is not an election for student council.  It is an election for an important position where the decisions that a judge makes often have a direct impact on people's everyday lives."

"Lawyers are in the unique position of being able to critically evaluate the performance of judicial officers they encounter on a daily basis, and most are able to do this objectively and get beyond the monentary disappointment they may experience when they in get a ruling they disagree with. My endorsements now include just under 500 lawyers. The VCBA evaluation reflects that level of support and approval.  Mr. Bjelke does not show great respect for either his profession or the position he seeks by refusing to present himself for scrutiny and evaluation."

Attorney Bjelke stated in an email that he declined to participate in the Bar Association's evaluation of the judicial candidates, criticizing the ratings process:

"I made the decision not to participate in the evaluation because I want to be elected by the people--not a committee of individuals who have no accountability.  It should also be noted that one of the members of this supposed "independent" committee openly and publicly endorses my opponent. That alone discredits the entire evaluation."

 "I graduated from a top law school, worked for one of the largest law firms in the United States, and I represent sophisticated clients in complex matters and litigation.  The ratings that this committee gave me are not based on any facts and they are irresponsible and absurd.  I am confident that the voters in Ventura County will see through this nonsense and realize that this is just an attempt to discredit me to maintain the status quo.  If you want to change the way the current process works, you will vote for me and bring new life to the bench."