Why voters should oppose the recall of Judge Persky
The editorial that appeared Feb. 12 in the San Francisco Chronicle got it right. The deciding question in the June 5 recall election targeting Judge Aaron Persky should be, “Did Persky follow the law?” The Chronicle concludes, “He did.”
This recall attempt seeks to punish a judge who in the course of his official duties, complied with his sworn oath to follow the law. The independent watchdog agency over judges, the California Commission on Judicial Performance determined in a 12page written decision that Judge Persky’s sentencing decision was within the parameters set by law and was therefore within the judge’s discretion.
After the decision was criticized, the Legislature changed the law, narrowing the range of discretion previously assigned to judges. This change is, of course, within the parameters of the state’s lawmaking body. It in no way casts any doubt on the integrity of Judge Persky’s decision.
This is the process followed in a democracy such as ours. We don’t remove judges from office because we don’t like one of their judicial decisions. This recall effort is not only ill-advised, it is also dangerous to our democratic system.
Judge Persky made a decision that was lawful at the time, a decision that could be tested for correctness on appeal, and a decision that has been reviewed by the California Commission on Judicial Performance and determined to be lawful without any sign of bias.
The law has since been changed and no longer permits a judge to impose the sentence that was imposed in the case at issue, but the recall campaign continues. Instead, they seek the removal of a respected jurist from office, despite his long, stellar career and widespread reputation as being a very fair judge.
The proponents of the recall should have been happy to have “won” the battle in the Legislature with the adoption of stricter sentencing laws. But one has to wonder about the real goal of this recall campaign. It certainly appears the goal is to teach judges, all judges, some lessons: if you want to keep your job as a judge, keep an eye on media reports of public sentiment when you are exercising your sworn duty to sentence a defendant in light of the law and the facts. Make sure you do not incur the wrath of those who know how to deploy the power of the Internet to inflame the passions of people who know nothing about the facts of the case or of the law, and who may, in particular, be misled by a distorted depiction of the facts.
Follow these “lessons,” judges, or you will meet the same fate as this judge, a judge who happened to be unlucky enough to get assigned this controversial case. The recall effort is ill-advised and dangerous. A total of 138 current and former judges and justices who signed on to this oped agree. In a society where judges must look to the public’s permission in advance of their rulings, the rule of law, the crown jewel of our democracy is gone, and justice is for sale.
Patricia Lucas is the Santa Clara County Superior Court presiding judge. Cruz Reynoso is a retired Supreme Court of California justice. LaDoris Cordell is a retired Santa Clara County Superior Court judge.