Will Persky Ouster Embolden Other Judicial Critics?

Print More

The successful recall of Aaron Persky, the first such episode in California since 1932,  capped an emotional and intense two-year campaign led by opponents appalled at the  judge’s lenient sentencing of sexual assault convict Brock Turner. The recall campaign has been viewed by many in the legal establishment with trepidation about the signal it sends regarding judicial independence. Experts say the circumstances of the Persky case won’t be replicated easily. At the same time, some say the outcome gives judicial critics a new measure of confidence about the feasibility of ousting a judge through a recall or other election process and provides would-be recall campaign leaders a blueprint to follow, Law.com reports.

“It’s hard to meet all the requirements [of a recall]. It’s hard to get all the petitions signed, and then keep the anger level up,” said Indiana University law Prof. Charles Geyh, author of a forthcoming book on judicial elections. “This may embolden angry locals to get judges recalled in the near term.” Only nine states allow judicial recalls, and four of them require certain elements for the process to be triggered, said William Rafferty of the the National Center for State Courts. California is one of a handful of states, with Arizona, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin, that allow the recall of trial judges for any reason. Other states hold retention elections asking voters whether an appointed judge should be kept in office. In 2010, voters ousted three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of a unanimous ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. California Chief Justice Rose Bird was removed in 1986 in a retention election over her opposition to the death penalty. From the Persky campaign, future opponents of a judge can see that social media can play a huge role in sustaining the anger.

One thought on “Will Persky Ouster Embolden Other Judicial Critics?

  1. What this coverage of the Persky recall fails to mention is the importance of judicial accountability, and not just judicial independence. Let’s not forget the backdrop of this recall- California’s only judicial oversight agency is suing the State Auditor in an attempt to block the sunshine and transparency that an audit, which was insisted on by judicial critics (as you call us) and ordered by the Legislature, would bring.

    Judicial independence without any accountability results in judicial tyranny. Based on its own records, the CJP disciplines judges in less than 1% of all complaints filed by the public. The agency is clearly no longer a public protection agency as it was created to be in 1960. It has become a “judicial branch” protection agency.

    But rather than focus on costly individual judicial recalls, we are targeting the agency’s budget with a half million dollar cut this year. If California’s Commission on Judicial Performance won’t protect the public from judicial bias and misconduct because it is their job to do so, then perhaps California’s Legislature is beginning to recognize that it does not deserve over $5m a year. If the CJP was doing it’s job, judicial recalls of Persky or any other judge would not be needed.

    Kathleen Russell
    Center For Judicial Excellence

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.