Lane County voters have an opportunity for the first time in 12 years to choose between more than one candidate for a Lane County Circuit Court judge position.
The four candidates running in the contested May 16 election answered questions about their previous experience and reasons for running during a forum at the Knight Law Center on Thursday afternoon.
Beverly Anderson, James Chaney, Alan Leiman and Debra Vogt took turns answering the same three questions from the moderator followed by questions from the audience.
First they talked about their qualifications for the position.
Each candidate said he or she has previous legal experience as an attorney, and all four cited that as part of their motivation for running, in addition to specific experiences unique to their backgrounds.
The second question asked about challenges facing judges.
All four candidates said an overload of court cases and a lack of funding for the jails and treatment programs are the biggest challenges for trial court judges in Lane County.
Remembering that each person has a unique reason for being in court and respecting every individual’s moment in court is part of the challenge of an over-crowded docket, Leiman said.
Anderson responded that not becoming jaded in light of these challenges requires a judge to have inner resources to draw upon.
Each candidate’s response to a question about what changes they would make in the courtroom related to making the court more efficient and responsive to the unique demands of each case.
In the course of Chaney’s 23 years as a practicing attorney, he has tried cases throughout Oregon and the West Coast, he said, and Lane County Circuit Court does a good job using its finite resources well.
As a clerk for Circuit Court Judge Maurice Mertern, Vogt was in court every day, and the major improvement she would like is to update the courthouse’s technological compatibility, she said.
A question from the audience about mandatory sentencing requirements passed by voters with ballot Measure 11 generated the most discussion.
Judicial discretion is nullified by mandatory sentencing requirements in certain types of robbery, assault, kidnapping, sexual abuse and other crimes.
All four said mandatory minimums significantly hindered a judge’s ability to sentence a defendant based on the particulars of the case. However, because it is the law, all four said they would apply a mandatory minimum.
“It’s important to be cognizant of why it’s the law,” Anderson said. “People feel unsafe because criminals aren’t serving the time they should be.”

Contact the crime, health and safety reporter at [email protected]