Efforts to recall judge get a boost from state
Bid to unseat jurist result of Stanford sex assault case
California’s top elections official stepped gingerly Tuesday into the proposed recall of the Santa Clara County judge who gave a light sentence in a Stanford sexual assault case, seeking court permission to argue that signature-gathering for the judge’s removal should resume.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office represents Padilla, took no position on the recall of Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky, which would be the first recall of a California judge in 86 years. But their court filing disputed arguments by Persky’s supporters who had persuaded a visiting judge to halt signature-gathering hours after it started on Aug. 11.
Those arguments — that the recall petitions should have been submitted to Padilla’s state office, not the county registrar, and that a successor to a recalled judge would be chosen by the governor, not the voters — “depart from longstanding practice and settled understandings of California’s election laws,” Padilla’s lawyers said.
A hearing is scheduled Wednesday in Superi-
or Court on a suit by Persky and his supporters that seeks to require the judge’s opponents to refile their petitions with the state. An order granting the request apparently would end any chance of a recall qualifying for the June 2018 ballot.
Marjorie Laird Carter, the retired Orange County judge who issued the Aug. 11 ruling, has since been removed from the case in a challenge by supporters of the recall, and state court officials had not named anyone to replace her as of Tuesday afternoon.
Michele Dauber, the Stanford law professor who heads the recall campaign, said county election officials have told the campaign that the proposed June recall election would be put off until November unless the courts allow signature-gathering to start by Sept. 1.
The campaign will have 160 days to collect 58,634 valid signatures of registered voters to make the ballot. Dauber said the campaign has lined up 300 volunteers and should be able to gather more than enough signatures within that period, which will start once a judge gives the go-ahead.
Persky, appointed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, ignited a furor last year when he sentenced Brock Turner, a former Stanford swimmer, to six months in jail for the felony sexual assault of an unconscious woman.
Prosecutors had sought a six-year prison sentence. Persky, in his sentencing decision, cited the “severe impact” of a potential prison term on Turner — who still must register with police for life as a sex offender — and noted that the court’s probation department had recommended a six-month term. Supporters of the recall say Persky has a history of leniency with male sex offenders.
The recall effort was put on hold Aug. 11 when Persky’s campaign prevailed on Carter — assigned to the case after all Santa Clara County judges disqualified themselves — to issue a restraining order to allow time to consider alleged flaws in the petition drive.
Although judges are elected by voters in each county, Persky’s supporters argue that the courts, funded by the state, are a “state agency” and that the recall move should have been filed with Padilla’s office. They also challenge the petitions’ assertion that voters would choose Persky’s successor in the same election, arguing that a recall would create a “vacancy,” which under the state Constitution must be filled by the governor for the next two years.
“At issue is the rule of law, deciding whether the California Constitution determines the procedures that apply to the recall of state judges,” said Elizabeth Pipkin, a lawyer for Persky’s campaign against the recall.
But Dauber said state law was to the contrary: The last California judges to be recalled, three Los Angeles jurists in 1932, were replaced by successful candidates in the same election, a sequence that has since been upheld by the California Supreme Court, she said. And she said Padilla and other election officials agree that judicial recalls are overseen by the county, not the state.
“It’s sad to see a judge engaging in this behavior — gamesmanship, shenanigans that are intended to stall and delay,” Dauber said.