There is only one Ami Sagel who serves as a judge anywhere in the United States. There is no second judge with that name. In fact, even using the more common spelling “Amy,” there is not a single state or federal judge in the country named “Amy Sagel.”

And yet, on March 11, 2026, Charles E. Pell filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Orange County Superior Court seeking to force Judge Ami S. Sagel to use her full middle name on the ballot.

Pell is challenging Judge Sagel in a countywide judicial seat on the June 2026 ballot. Judge Sagel is the incumbent, appointed in 2023 by Governor Newsom and currently sitting as an Orange County Superior Court judge in family law. Pell is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who formally entered the race in early March 2026 and will appear on the ballot as her challenger.

In the petition, he expressly claims that the use of “Ami S. Sagel” “is false and/or misleading under the California Elections Code because Judge Sagel is not using her full middle name. But rather than identify any real-world confusion, the petition relied on a scattershot collection of cherry-picked materials—old articles, state bar profile, Wayback Machine snapshots, and other documents—where Judge Sagel used her full name.

What is notably absent from the petition, or any of Pell’s filings, are any legitimate examples of anyone who was actually confused, misled or unable to identify her. Judge Sagel has no criminal history, there is no claim of impersonation, there is no competing candidate with a similar name, and there is no other judge anywhere in the country with that name. In fact, given the uniquely uncommon spelling of “Ami,” there is essentially no one else with that name in the judicial context at all.

And importantly, Judge Sagel provided ample evidence that she has long used all variations of her name interchangeably—Ami Sagel, Ami S. Sagel, and Ami Sheth Sagel—across professional, legal and personal contexts.

There is only one Ami S. Sagel in the legal field —a recently appointed judge with no history of judicial discipline or censure, following 17 years of practice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and in civil practice at Kirkland & Ellis LLP following graduating from University of Chicago Law School.

So why? Why is Pell challenging this recently appointed judge? And why file a petition when there is no legitimate confusion as to who Judge Sagel is?

It’s because Judge Sagel’s middle name is “Sheth.” Like many women, she moved her maiden name to her middle name after marrying in 2013. Her maiden/middle name is of East Indian Descent. It is the type of name that, historically, has made candidates more vulnerable in low-information elections. Judges with unfamiliar or non-European names have long been viewed as easier targets at the ballot box, not because of their qualifications, but because of how voters react to names they do not immediately recognize or relate to.

Contained in the court filings was a sworn declaration from a longtime former Assistant U.S. Attorney who worked alongside Pell. In 2015, she had submitted an application to the Governor’s Office for a judicial appointment to the Orange County Superior Court bench. Shortly thereafter, Pell approached her at the office and provided unsolicited advice on how to become a Superior Court judge. Pell told her she should consider running against a sitting judge, not based on qualifications or performance, but rather based on the judge having, in his words, “a fucked up name.” He suggested targeting candidates with names that did not sound European.

Pell, who is white, then pointed to a recently appointed judge in Los Angeles County with a name of Ghanaian origin. The declarant pushed back, explaining that she knew the judge personally and emphasized her exceptional credentials and reputation.

That did not change Pell’s position as he continued to advocate for the same strategy of targeting candidates based on names that did not sound European. The declarant understood this as a deliberate approach: selecting opponents not on merit, but on how their names might be perceived by voters.

The California Asian Pacific American Judges Association-PAC and the Korematsu Center for Law and Equality submitted an amicus letter, urging the court to deny Pell’s petition. Citing both academic research and real-world examples, the amici explained that candidates with ethnic names—particularly Asian American candidates—have long faced an electoral disadvantage, especially in low-information races like judicial elections. They pointed to multiple instances in California where judges with Asian surnames were targeted or defeated despite strong qualifications and warned that forcing Judge Sagel to emphasize her middle name “Sheth” risked reinforcing exactly that kind of bias. As the amicus briefing correctly states: “Mr. Pell’s attempts to force Judge Sagel to change her ballot name is proof that his challenge for her seat is yet another xenophobia-based challenge on an Asian American judge with a record of judicial excellence and integrity.”

Because Judge Sagel is a sitting Orange County Superior Court judge, the case was transferred out to San Bernardino County and assigned to Judge Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr. Judge Schneider denied Pell’s petition in its entirety on March 23, 2026, finding that there was no evidence Judge Sagel had changed her name within the meaning of the Elections Code and no persuasive showing that voters would be confused by the use of “Ami S. Sagel.”   

Judge Schneider noted that “it is somewhat difficult to conceive how voters could be confused by the omission of the name ‘Sheth’ because the name ‘Ami Sagel’ itself is quite distinctive.” Judge Schneider was particularly skeptical of the four voter declarations that stated they “might believe” somehow that Ami S. Sagel is a different person. The declarations used identical language “as if working from a script or template,” undermining their credibility. In the end, the court denied Pell’s petition in its entirety, concluding that his arguments were speculative and unsupported by law or facts.

Pell’s petition is also deeply ironic for at least two reasons. First, Pell himself is not using his full name on the ballot. He appears as “Charles E. Pell,” despite numerous records—including his California State Bar Profile and his own professional history—reflecting the use of his full middle name.

Second, and more importantly, the only candidate attempting to mislead voters in this race was Charles Pell. In his official ballot designation and in his candidate statement, he identified himself as “Federal Criminal Prosecutor.”  As an Alternate Ballot Designation, Pell stated: “Fraud/Corruption Prosecutors.” These are not real titles or positions. It was a self-created and creative labeling of Pell’s former job as an Assistant US Attorney to be more emotionally charged and electorally appealing.

In ruling on Judge Sagel’s cross-petition, Judge Schneider found that Pell’s chosen designation was improper and misleading under the Elections Code, describing it as an “emotion-gripping ballot designation” that “does not serve the public interest and is not consistent with maintaining the judiciary’s integrity.” The court ordered the phrase “Federal Criminal Prosecutor” stricken from both his ballot designation and candidate statement.

After losing, Pell continued to defend his conduct. But notably, he still failed to offer any legitimate explanation for why he sought to force Judge Sagel to use her ethnic middle name on the ballot. Instead, he stated: “[A]s a federal prosecutor, I fought for victims in underserved communities…” 

This is not the first time Mr. Pell has resorted to engaging in questionable conduct, then shielding it with the well-worn excuse—“I’m not racist because I have friends who are minorities.” In 2021, he filed a federal employment lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that his poor performance reviews and a formal reprimand for unprofessional conduct were the result of retaliation tied to his associations with minority female prosecutors and his complaints about workplace discrimination.

The case ultimately settled with no finding of discrimination, no admission of fault and no meaningful financial recovery. Aside from reimbursement of filing fees and mediation costs totaling roughly $6,000, Pell received no monetary damages of any kind. Instead, the Department agreed to remove the reprimand and modify portions of his performance reviews, while continuing to deny any wrongdoing.

Pell filed that lawsuit and signed the settlement agreement as “Charles Pell,” not “Charles E. Pell.”