Filing politically motivated lawsuits against opponents is a troubling trend that undermines our democratic processes. Whether you support President-Donald Trump or not, the use of our courts to discredit, distract, and obstruct a political figure is unprecedented in modern U.S. history. This weaponization of the legal system, commonly referred to as “lawfare,” is now being mirrored at the local level here in Orange County, where retired federal bankruptcy Judge Lynn Riddle, a liberal Democrat, has taken aim at elected County Board of Education Member Mari Barke, a conservative Republican, by filing a civil lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court asking Barke comply with California’s political financial disclosure laws and seeking monetary damages that Riddle herself will collect if she prevails.
Riddle’s lawsuit is a glaring example of lawfare—a strategic abuse of the legal system to settle political scores. As a former judge, Riddle should understand the importance of preserving the courts for legitimate grievances, not personal or political vendettas. Her actions are not just disappointing, they’re dangerous.
In this case, justice has already been served. The allegations against Barke center on her failure to report certain income on financial disclosure forms, a requirement of her office. Based on an unintentional clerical error based on faulty advice, Barke amended her filings and reached a settlement with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), including paying a fine. The matter should have ended there.
Instead, Riddle continues to pursue a civil lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court, seeking damages even after the FPPC resolved the issue. This escalation raises serious questions about her motivations. Is the goal to financially bleed Barke? To dig up political dirt through legal discovery? Or to create an election-year scandal? Or personal financial gain?
This is a weaponization of the Courts. This lawsuit is not just unusual, it is dangerous. Courts should not be tools for political revenge. Riddle’s refusal to drop the case after the FPPC took action undermines the principle of fairness. It sets a precedent for both Democrats and Republicans to escalate and weaponize the legal system against their opponents.
This case also erodes public trust in our institutions. When legal processes are used as political cudgels, they lose their legitimacy. The fallout of normalizing lawfare is profound: a fractured democracy, heightened partisanship, and a justice system seen as a battleground rather than a protector of fairness.
Riddle’s political bias is clear. She has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Barkes’ political rivals, leaving little doubt about Riddle’s motives. This is not about justice—it is about discrediting a political adversary. Her financial entanglements and history of donations expose her lawsuit as a calculated attempt to harm Mari, both politically and personally.
The personal gain Riddle may achieve from this lawsuit—be it financial, political clout, or influence within her ideological circles—further discredits her actions. Allowing personal motives to cloud the pursuit of justice is unethical and undermines the very system she once served.
But the consequences of lawfare go beyond this individual case. If weaponizing the courts becomes the norm, it creates an arms race of retaliatory lawsuits. Today, it’s a Democratic operative targeting a Republican official; tomorrow, it could be the reverse. This endless cycle benefits no one and chips away at the foundations of our democracy.
Lawfare also deters talented individuals from entering public service. The threat and personal cost of politically motivated lawsuits and public character assassination dissuades reformers and innovators from stepping into the political arena. When the system punishes those who seek to challenge the status quo, it ensures stagnation and mediocrity in leadership.
Riddle’s actions also undermine the FPPC, the body tasked with addressing financial disclosure violations. By sidestepping this established mechanism and dragging the matter into court, she weakens public confidence in regulatory institutions. Trust in our democracy depends on respecting these processes, not bypassing them for personal or political gain.
This lawsuit sends a chilling message: challenge the system, and it will strike back. And so it creates a dynamic that suppresses debate, discourages reform, and entrenches the power of those who benefit from the status quo. A democracy cannot thrive in such an environment.
As a retired judge, Riddle should uphold the principles of justice, not exploit them. Her actions betray the integrity she once swore to defend. This kind of political warfare sets a dangerous precedent and threatens the credibility of both our legal and political systems. Shame on her for turning the courts into a political cudgel.
In closing, it is abundantly clear that politically motivated lawsuits are a destructive force in our democracy. They erode trust, discourage public service, and compromise the fairness of our institutions. Riddle’s lawsuit against Barke is a stark reminder of the dangers of lawfare.
It is time for all parties to reconsider the broader implications of their actions. Weaponizing the courts for political gain undermines the very foundations of justice and democracy. If we do not reject this trend, we risk turning our legal system into a political battleground, leaving our fragile democracy further fractured and our institutions weakened.
Jon Fleischman is the Publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics. He has been active in the political process for many decades.