Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Conozca la información antes de votar.
Presentado por
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Tuesday June 7, 2022 — California Primary Election

Tribunal Superior de California, Condado de San DiegoCandidato para Juez, Cargo 36

Photo de Peter Singer

Peter Singer

Superior Court Commissioner
176,251 votos (26.1%)Winning
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
Para obtener más información a fondo sobre este candidato, siga los enlaces de cada pestaña en esta sección. En la mayoría de los lectores de pantalla, puede presionar Regresar o Ingresar para entrar a una pestaña y leer el contenido.
El candidato(a) proporcionó información.
Agradezca al candidato por compartir su información en Voter’s Edge.

Mis 3 prioridades principales

  • Already on the Superior Court bench as a court commissioner, I pledge to continue to provide fair and impartial judgment in the matters before me, always maintaining respect, patience and courage to make the difficult decisions.
  • To expand access to justice to those whose business comes before the court, bearing in mind the difficulties that some litigants experience in having their day in court. I would like to see the availability of remote court appearances remain.
  • To never lose perspective and continuing to be mindful that I am a public servant. My role is to serve the community with dignity, courtesy, patience and respect while exercising good judgment.



Profesión:Superior Court Commissioner, Superior Court of CA
Superior Court Commissioner, San Diego Superior Court (2015–current)
Commissioner of the Superior Court, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego — Cargo designado (2015–current)
Solo Practice Attorney, Law Officer of Peter W. Singer (1987–2015)
Pro Tem (Temporary) Judge, San Diego Municipal Court and Superior Court of California, County of San Diego — Cargo designado (1993–2015)
Firefighter, Vice President, Secretary, Willingboro (NJ) Fire Department — Cargo designado (1976–1979)


Western State University, College of Law Juris Doctor of Law, Law (1986)
Rutgers College (of Rutgers University) Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, Human Communication, Philosophy (1980)

Actividades comunitarias

President and CEO, Lions Community Service Corporation (2019–current)
President and Chair of the Board, San Diego Lions Welfare Foundation (2016–2017)
President, Downtown San Diego (Host) Lions Club (2015–2016)
President, Temple Adat Shalom Men's Club (2014–2015)
President and Chair of the Board, San Diego Lions Welfare Foundation (2006–2007)

Preguntas y Respuestas

Preguntas de Source: League of Women Voters of San Diego and League of Women Voters of North County San Diego (1)

Do you label yourself "tough on crime" and, if so, what does that mean to you? Should convicted criminals always get the maximum sentence? Should a judge always go along with the sentence requested by a prosecutor?
Respuesta de Peter Singer:

I would not label myself "tough on crime" or "easy on crime."  I have a long and respected history on the bench and to adopt one of those labels would undermine my ability to be fair and impartial.  Every case is different and should be treated accordingly.  I do not believe that the maximum sentence is always appropriate, however, it certainly is in some cases.  Again, my job is to evaluate the facts and consider what is appropriate to each case individually.  Likewise, a judge's job is not to always go along with the sentence recommended by the prosecution, nor would it be suitable to automatically go along with what the defense is proposing.

As the neutral umpire, a judge’s role is to be fair and impartial while being respectful and exercising patience.  In sentencing considerations, the court must be mindful of the severity of a crime, victims’ rights, protecting the public, restitution and appropriate punishment.

Preguntas de League of Women Voters of San Diego and League of Women Voters of North County San Diego (1)

Would you say that the San Diego County Bar Association's judicial evaluation of you is a fair and accurate assessment of your qualifications? If not, which aspects of your experience may have been overlooked or undervalued?
Respuesta de Peter Singer:

I am disappointed by the SDCBA's evaluation of my qualifications.  The SDCBA’s JEEC evaluation is completely opaque, with the belief that confidentiality “ensures candid feedback from members of the legal community and public….”  Perhaps not considered is that such secrecy provides an opportunity for detractors to make baseless and irrelevant accusations without their identities ever being revealed.

My body of work on the bench has been without reproach.  My supervising judges have continually given me impeccable reviews and I have been honored to have been selected -- and serve -- as an educator for new judges and commissioners statewide.  I rule on hundreds of cases each month, so it is understandable that disgruntled litigants and attorneys might see this review process as an opportunity for retribution with anonymity.  In addition, having been involved in extensive litigation as an attorney, I am certain that some people might have an axe to grind.  I am disturbed that the JEEC committee may have received hundreds or more shining evaluations, yet only desired to discuss a handful of vague criticisms during my interview.

I was hired by the judges of the San Diego Superior Court from a pool of 137 applicants.  I have since received glowing employee evaluations from the Court -- all of which I have made public on my website:

I serve on multiple volunteer committees of the Superior Court.  I annually serve as a judge for the high school moot court competition, and I teach constitutional law in the Judges in the Classroom program.  I have been selected as California Court Commissioner of the Year, elected president of the California Court Commissioners Association, I serve on an advisory committee by appointment of California's Chief Justice, and I am an instructor for new commissioners and judges from around the State as a faculty member of California's Judicial College. 

I preside daily in a busy, public courtroom, accessible both virtually and in person.  I would have hoped that an evaluation of a sitting bench officer would include observation of how that person conducts business in court.  It seems impossible to me that my qualifications, experience, and respectful treatment of those who appear before me were accurately considered in the evaluation.

I was informed that the letter of criticisms provided "is not reflective of the tenor or content of the majority of the responses received."  One reported criticism was that I lack trial experience.  As an attorney, I handled well in excess of 1,000 trials.  On the bench, as a temporary judge for 22 years coupled with my almost seven years as a commissioner, I have handled many thousands of trials.

When I received my JEEC rating in an email from the County Bar, the committee chair stated that "no further communication will be made from me regarding this confidential process and I will be unable to respond to any further questions."  It should be noted that I had not posed any questions prior to my receiving that notification. 

Información de contacto del candidato

¿Quién más se está postulando?

Comparta este sitio para ayudar a otras personas a investigar sus opciones para las votaciones.