Only one Contra Costa judge faces a challenge in the March 3 election – and even that challenge is meritless.

Voters should elect Judge Susanne Fenstermacher to another term on the Superior Court bench. Appointed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to a vacancy in 2005, she was unopposed in 2008 and 2014 when she won full six-year terms. She has handled cases ranging from family court to felony criminal cases, from juvenile delinquency cases to probate.

She’s endorsed by all the other Contra Costa judges. There are no signs of troubling rulings or poor judicial temperament, and no records of any problems with the state Commission on Judicial Performance. Indeed, she was selected as the 2019 Contra Costa trial judge of the year by the Alameda-Contra Costa Trial Lawyers’ Association.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Get editorials, opinion columns, letters to the editor and more in your inbox weekday mornings. Sign up for the Bay Area Opinion newsletter.

Attempts to unseat judges generally should be grounded in legitimate complaints about performance. Voters should reject attempts to politicize the judiciary. We want judges to be able to make legally supported, not politically popular, decisions without fear of job loss.

In the case of Fenstermacher’s opponent, defense attorney Pezhman Pakneshan, there seems to be no legitimate basis for his challenge. Pakneshan says he has never appeared before Fenstermacher, nor had any interactions with her. He has no complaints about her record.

Meanwhile, Pakneshan, a sole practitioner handling DUI and other criminal cases, does not provide a compelling reason why he would be good judge. He has made no attempt to solicit endorsements from those who might attest to his legal strengths.

On his professional website, with visuals of flashing police car lights and a man behind bars, he claims that “Mr. Pakneshan specializes in virtually every area of criminal law.” It gives new meaning to the word specialize.

Of the 87 different practice areas he claims to handle, he never mentions being a civil rights attorney, the designation he uses on the ballot. It’s too much braggadocio and too little transparency for a judicial candidate.

Voters should elect Fenstermacher to a new term. It’s not a close decision.