.
.
.
California Supreme Court Justice Leonca Kruger, center, between Fourth Appellate District Division 3 (OC!) Justice Thomas Goethals and Fourth District Division 1 Justice Patricia Guerrero
1. JUDICIAL RETENTION RACES
MY BASIC PRINCIPLE: Subjecting judges to popular vote is a terrible idea. It forces them to protect themselves by setting aside anti-majoritarian protections — such as the Constitution itself, and rules regarding fairness to people who might be the targets of anger of the “mob” — and to cater to principles that should not play a role in determining what positions are right under the law. So I’ll favor voting against retaining a judge under one of two circumstances:
- Something about their character (e.g. sexual misconduct, documented bigotry) or competence
- They do something so heinous in making a decision that the public shouldn’t have to suffer it
The second consideration goes beyond my mere, or even strong, disagreement with some opinion or order. It has to be something truly wild, unprincipled, and beyond what most reasonable judges would do.
To cut to the chase: we don’t have anything like that up this year for any of the judges before us.
California Supreme Court: Carol Corrigan and Leonda Kruger
Some LGBT activists are opposing Corrigan because years ago she voted that the question of same-sex marriage should be decided by the voters rather than the courts. I would likely have done otherwise, but I don’t think that she was motivated by animus or bigotry, this was before the Supreme Court precedent had changed, and I do think that she’d respect and defend it as settled law in California if a newly anti-LGBT US Supreme Court came to disturb that ruling. I’ll vote to retain Corrigan.
Some conservatives — though not enough to constitute a movement — are opposing Kruger because, so far as I can tell, she’s a liberal, and perhaps because she’s a woman of color with expressive hair. I love having her on the court. I’ll stick to my principle and endorse keeping both; you should too.
California 4th Appellate District, Division 3 (Orange County):
Justices Thomas M. Goethals, Raymond Ikola, and David A. Thompson. VOTE YES on all 3.
I know of no reason why voters would want to get rid of either Justices Ikola or Thompson and I will vote to retain them. There is apparently some concerted effort to vote against Justice Goethals, who gave OC Public Defender Scott Sanders the leeway he needed to obtain and present evidence of deep and widespread corruption in the District Attorney’s office. DO NOT FALL FOR IT. What Justice Goethals did was in the best and bravest tradition of the judiciary — following the Constitution and the other laws and letting the chips fall where they may. Two things happened to him as a result. (1) OCDA Tony Rackauckas’s crew instructed its prosecutors to disqualify Goethals from their murder cases without cause — that was their only choice, because there WAS no just cause — and (2) he was rightly chosen to ascend to the appellate court for his intelligence, temperament AND commitment to the law. If anyone tells you to vote out a man who is no less than tied for being our county’s best judge, do the non-violent verbal equivalent of gaveling their voting finger out of order. VOTING TO RETAIN JUSTICE GOETHALS IS ONE OF YOUR MOST IMPORTANT VOTES IN THIS ELECTION!
California 4th Appellate District, Division 1 (San Diego and Imperial Counties) and Division 2 (Inyo, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties):
While we have a legitimate interest in these races — cases they decide they set precedents for judges in our appellate district to follow, affecting about 11 million people from Inyo down to Imperial and from San Ysidro up to Brea — those of us in this county (which makes up all of Division 3) don’t have much expertise with them or the cases they decide. So these are literally the only races on any of my ballot that I will intentionally leave blank — with one pretty sizable exception.
For these elections I will go onto sites giving the recommendations of extremely activist judicial conservatives and see whom they’re going after (by recommending a “NO” vote on anyone that they score as below 7 on a scale of 0 to 10. (Yes, that is how severely they want to restrict the judiciary. Obviously, they reject the philosophy that I wrote out at the top of this section.) I will vote “YES” to counteract one “NO” vote that those judges are likely getting here in Orange County from people who have read their recommendations. For judges on whom they recommend a “YES” vote, I will abstain on anyone unless I have some other reason not to do so, because my interest is in defending against others trying to “fix” the judiciary to their liking, not to try to do so myself.
So here my are recommended votes for the eastern quarter of our state:
Division 1 (San Diego and Imperial Counties):
Cynthia Aaron – YES
William Dato – YES
Judith Haller – Abstain
Richard Huffman – Abstain
Patricia Guerrero – YES
Patricia Benke – Abstain
Joan Irion – YES
Division 2 (Inyo, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties):
Richard Fields – YES
Art McKinster – Abstain
Douglas Miller – Abstain
Marsha Slough – YES
Again, if I wanted to “fix” the judiciary, those “Abstain” votes — meaning, of course, just skip those ones — would be recommendations of “NO.” But unlike my ideological counterparts, I don’t want to “fix” the judiciary. I just want the judges to be free to judge intelligently and in good conscience.
Note: “How do I vote on the judges?” is the biggest question I get from voters in every election, so if this is all you’ve been waiting for, then you’re set. If you have a little while to see what news develops over the coming days and weeks, more installments of my endorsements will be coming out over the next week or two — I’m working around some court filings, unfortunately — and I’ll have a big jumbo collection out by the Friday before Election Day, as well as shorter lists giving Vern and my choices (on which we largely, but not always, agree.)
*Our opinion is simple: No one should ever run UNOPPOSED. There should always be
at least two choices on the ballot.
“Some conservatives — though not enough to constitute a movement — are opposing Kruger because, so far as I can tell, she’s a liberal, and perhaps because she’s a woman of color with expressive hair.”
Or perhaps the fact that she worked in the Obama administration and was appointed to the bench by Jerry Brown.
But nope.. that doesn’t have anything to with my NO vote *face palm*
BTW thanks for your help on these 😉
Dave, do you think that any of these is a reason to vote NO on retaining a justice?
You know, Republicans have a stake in upholding the norms I suggest above, because if Democrats ever decided to play that game the judiciary could be devoid of Republican appointees inside of 15 years.
Let me know if you’re really planning of voting NO on Kruger. I’m sure that we can find someone to balance you out by voting NO on Corrigan. It won’t be me, but I can appreciate rough justice when it comes to people getting rough on Justices.
your response is almost entirely synonymous with “she’s a liberal, and perhaps because she’s a woman of color with expressive hair.” appointed by jerry brown = liberal and worked in the obama admin = person of color. case dismissed.
Haha — just saw this. Yes, I was hoping that someone would notice that!
Never realized Obama hired exclusively POC!
When I saw who she worked for an was appointed by, I immediately became wary. No, not because I’m terrified of people with different shades of skin, but because Obama and Jerry Brown are highly ideological and put in people that follow their own ideologies. Many people would immediately wonder, “Can this person be categorized as SJW?”
I didn’t throw her out immediately because of it. I tried to find some positions she’s argued. You go to a lot of places and they sure like to announce that “she’s black” and “she’s young”. I don’t care. I want to know what she stands for.
What I can find is that she wanted a religious minister of a church the same as a teacher so that federal discrimination laws would apply. In other words, bringing government into church. I don’t necessarily agree with firing a minister because she has narcolepsy – though I can understand it partially because if she had an episode during Mass or something it could cause panic. However, I don’t like how Kruger attempted to bring federal discrimination laws into a church setting.
I say that as someone who is not a church-goer. I left church many years ago because I thought it was BS. I just see this as overstepping her boundaries, and it’s indicative of how she may feel about other things.
Implying that “everyone who doesn’t like her because she’s a liberal == they’re all racist” is not a good way to convince people to vote for her. That sort of attitude drives people away very quickly. Most of us are not identitarians and are repulsed by the identitarian attitude, and the Democrats embracing such an ideology is a major part of why they’re having trouble now. This election should be easily won by the Democrats according to historical trends – and yet they’re struggling and there’s a chance of them losing in the Senate AND House, something that shouldn’t even be on the table. Amazingly, going around calling everyone a racist based on absolutely nothing doesn’t make people a lot of friends. Who’d have thought?
When there are similar campaigns against the other Democratic appointees on the court, rather than just the against the Black woman with ample natural-styled hair, maybe I’ll consider your defense. Meanwhile, having lived almost 60 years on this planet, more than two decades of it in Orange County, and having become familiar with its xenophobia and often downright bigotry, I’ll stand by my take on what’s going on..
Look, if I and other Democrats wanted to come up with reasons to go after Republican appointee Carol Corrigan with enough unity to dislodge her — in other words, to treat her the way many Republicans are treating Kruger — we could probably manage it. I’m getting grief from some Democrats for arguing against that — on the grounds that there should be a presumption that maintaining ideological diversity on the court is a good thing so long as people aren’t totally wacky — and frankly you’re giving them fuel for their fire. Why are you doing that? Doesn’t make much sense.
I’m abstaining on Corrigan. I suggest that you abstain on Kruger, if you can’t support her, unless you can find evidence of malfeasance. And even if her difference makes you uneasy (the way that Obama’s did for many here), I don’t think you can find any.
I’ve weighed in elsewhere against voting no on a judge just because of the Party of the executive who appointed them… because way too often I’ve read about a decision that I agree with, that seems very fair, and the next thing I read is that the judge was a Bush or Schwarzenegger appointee.
I very much appreciate this post. Your criteria and explanations are excellent and in alignment with my own thinking. In fact, my search for low ratings by liberal/activist groups to use as a guide for who warranted a “yes” vote led me to this post. Thank you for sharing your research and expertise.
Wow, Greg, this piece is one of our biggest hits in recent months! On the track for thousands…
I know. “What about the judges?” is up there with “What about the propositions?” as the main questions I get. Those are the gaps that keep people from sending in their mail ballots early.
Thank you, Sharon; that sort of reaction makes it worth the effort.
Especially from, as may be true, a descendant of the inventor of those devices that have proved so useful on our clothing.
Ditto, from another Sharon. I take a long time online trying to find reasons to vote against judiciary and propositions. Generally I take the attitude that there’s a good reason that judge is there and there’s a good reason there were enough signatures to put a proposition on the ballot. But… Yes, there’s always a “but.” In the case of politics, there’s so much smoke and mirrors, it’s often difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff (sorry for the mixed metaphors). Anyway, there’s always Greg’s and Vern’s recommendations to fall back on after I’ve squeezed every possible pixel of info from other sources. Inevitably, of my 100%-certain choices, they always match Greg’s. And because of this, I rely on his explanations to help me with the no-so-certain choices. Thank you, guys, for the humongous effort, time, sweat, tears, and typing that go into this site. And don’t ever, ever take it off-line! You should be given handshakes and hugs by every progressive in So. Cal.
As far as the judiciary are concerned, I don’t hold it against them for being conservative unless they prove to be radical. If I hear of a ruling or tendencies that show their judgment is determined by ideology, that’s a “no” for me. There are so many unfair, partial, horrendous rulings by conservative judges, I’m convinced it’s very difficult for them to even see any other side. So I tend to hug the “ruthless” side of the line in those cases. By comparison, in all honesty, I don’t seem to mind obvious liberal judgments. If a ruling leans liberal, it usually favors the powerless, who need all the help they can get when they’re facing a sometimes unfair system to begin with.
Why do you abstain from Judith Haller?
I looked all over the Internet to see if I could find rulings or something that might make me question her. I couldn’t really find anything, unless I missed is.
Another rating site finds her extremely ideological, as I recall. That’s not enough for me to vote *against* her, but I don’t have to vote *for* her.
Never mind Huffman…..I found this:
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2005/aug/11/his-eyes-were-red-and-glassy/
Thank you for posting this, Greg!!
Thank you for reading it, Deborah!
yep, this has been a useful post…!!!! Thanks for doing all the work!
this is good. thanks. it helped as balance out these judges.
I’m so glad I found this. I was starting to write a guide about my own recommendations and came across this blog post. For the most part, I fall within your motions for abstinence (voting No) because it’s questionable whether some of these judges are truly without bias or fairness – particularly Benke, who is suffering from some bad press right now, and to a lesser degree Huffman. I will heavily consider your defense for Goethals.
Thanks, Greg who isn’t me! ^^^^
Echoing the above, I’ve been searching and searching for a recommendation list that demonstrated more thoughtfulness than simply voting “yes” or “no” for a judge based on who appointed him/her. Thank you for sharing your thought process and recommendations. I’m still struggling to decide whether to vote “no” on the judges you are abstaining from (the temptation is real!), but either way it helped to read your thoughts.
Thank you. I can understand why people would want to play “tit for tat”; I just think that with Democrats dominating the statewide electorate anyway there’s no need for it — and there is some benefit in both being and appearing to be above party politics when it comes to judges. If there were credible charges of wrongdoing and lying about wrongdoing, as with You Know Who, I’d vote “NO” in a heartbeat.
Yep, that definitely makes sense and is wise. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts!
This is one of the most underrated, useful blog posts I have come across. Up there with “top ten ways you can get more food at Chipotle for less”
Greg for main bae 2020
Up there with miking Chipotle? High praise indeed! I will tell my wife that in two years I get to be Main Bae. Coincidentally, 2020 is when she’ll stop laughing.
Hit count on this is insane.
It’s like this every cycle. Judges, Propositions, and Independent Boards. People can generally figure out the rest on their own.
Hey Greg, I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate this post. Your approach makes sense to me. It really helped me in making and confirming my decisions on what to vote for each judge. I’ll definitely be checking this site next election. P.S. Your bio is funny. Thank you for the laugh