By Anna Daniels
Editor note: The San Diego Free Press has not endorsed any judges. The opinions in the article are those of the author.
Does this sound familiar? ” I’m filling out my ballot and there are 14 judges. Who do I vote for and specifically not for?” The usual means at our disposal for choosing voter nominated candidates and propositions are noticeably absent when voting for judges. It is therefore easy to blow off this obscure exercise in democracy until you wake up one day to find out that you have been Kreep’d, as in San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep.
Gary Kreep is the conservative activist judge elected in 2012 who has since been “banished” to traffic court for his distinctly idiosyncratic approach to the practice of law. He is best remembered for being an Obama birther who openly flew his freak flag before the election. So shame on us and no, we don’t want this to happen again.
Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 25- Vote “Yes” for Brad Weinreb
We are called upon to vote for a Superior Court Judge this election cycle. This is the court that will hear local civil, criminal, juvenile, family, probate and traffic cases. Unlike the the Appeals and Supreme Court in which judges are appointed by the governor and then retained or not by subsequent votes, Superior Court Judges are elected. Our choices are Ken Gosselin, Attorney Business Owner and Brad Weinreb, Deputy Attorney General.
The San Diego County Bar Association rates judges as Well Qualified, Qualified or Lacking Qualifications. Ken Gosselin is rated as Lacking Qualifications for not meeting a number of unspecified factors. A KPBS article from earlier this year starts off with “San Diego Superior Court judicial candidate Ken Gosselin is accused of misleading voters about his education, his experience and the kind of law he practices.” A more recent article questions his law enforcement ties and endorsements.
Don’t over think this one- while Gosselin does not approach Kreep level, he’s decidedly hinky. Gosselin’s opponent Brad Weinreb is rated as Qualified by the Bar Association and that is good enough.
California Supreme Court Judges–Vote “Yes” to Retain Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
At first glance, it is easy to wonder why all the other judges in our sample ballot appear to be running unopposed. We are not being asked to elect these particular judges–they were all initially appointed by whomever was governor at the time. We are being asked whether they should be retained or not.
There are seven Supreme Court Judges in California. Their regular sessions are conducted in San Francisco and Los Angeles, not in San Diego. It is California’s highest court and its decisions are binding on all other state courts. This is the court that overturned Prop 8. They hear high profile cases.
These appointed judges are vetted in a way that elected judges often are not. There are a number of sites recommended by the League of Women Voters to find out more about these judges. The two sites which I found particularly helpful are www.courts.ca.gov and judgepedia.org. There is nothing in the information provided that leads me to believe that any of these judges should not be retained.
UPDATED Appeals Court, Divisions One, Two and Three- “No” on Terry B. O’Rourke (Division One)
Sarah Sainz submitted a comment from the Reader about Terry O’Rourke:
San Diego Reader | Candid Justice
“The candidate is viewed as having one of the worst temperaments among San Diego judges,” the State Bar paper said. “[He] has a reputation for being mean-spirited and vindictive…has not provided fair and impartial justice…outbursts of anger…slamming books and other materials on the bench…insults attorneys…loud, confrontational behavior.
There was worse. The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation of the State Bar of California, usually called the Jenny Commission (after the initials JNE), cited criticisms of sexism and racism. “The candidate’s ill temperament and abusive behavior are disproportionately visited upon women…. He has been heard to make racially and gender-sensitive remarks such as ‘The quality of the bench has declined since governors have started pandering to women and minorities’; ‘Mexicans are the dregs of society’; and ‘We have to deal with all of this minority law practice.’ … Candidate’s behavior problems have become worse in the last decade.”
I did a little more research on O’Rourke. According to this LA Times article, the appointment process was rancorous–he was appointed by then governor Pete Wilson despite a “scathing negative evaluation by the state bar committee” and “critics calling him an abusive and volatile tyrant who is insensitive to women and minorities.” The original post has been updated with this information and my “No” vote. Thanks Sarah!
The Appellate Court judges, like those on the California Supreme Court, are appointed by the governor. We are being asked whether they should be retained. This is the intermediate court system between our San Diego County Superior Court and the Supreme Court. I have not finished researching the remaining ten judges in this category. My priority is Division One which has jurisdiction in San Diego and Imperial counties. Divisions Two and Three cover Inyo, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties.
Judges and Politics
The League of Women Voters cautions voters that “Justices must make decisions based on laws already created by the Legislature and facts provided by the parties, not based on popular opinion.” Judges are called upon to strike a balance between judicial independence and accountability.
Some of the most acrimonious debate surrounding the appointment of judges has centered on the issue of “activist judges.” Conservatives have rallied around this issue and it’s worth keeping in mind what that means to them. I came across a judge voter guide which has this to say about judicial activism:
Instead, activist judges have been advancing a political agenda that:
- Destroys the separation of powers
- Weakens the structure of federalism
- Usurps the right of the people to govern themselves
- Undermines protection of religious freedoms and the First Amendment
- Seeks to impose humanism, multiculturalism, relativism and internationalism on us, regardless of the people’s will
- Is biased against free enterprise and is anti-growth—resulting in higher taxes and less opportunity for our future
I look at these sites because they are often harbingers of get out the vote or recall efforts that fly under the normal electoral radar. They are the febrile swamps that spawn the next Gary Kreep. This particular site gives a “yes” to Ken Gosselin, the hinky guy running for Superior Court. I’m not recommending spending much time on these sites, but they are definitely out there.
What are your thoughts?
Are there other helpful resources? Do use have a different way to evaluate judges on the ballot? We’d like to hear from you.
Anna Daniels
Latest posts by Anna Daniels (see all)
- Bob Dorn: Rest in Power! - December 3, 2018
- The Urgency of Transgender Safety, Legal Protections - November 27, 2018
- Chaos and Cruelty at the Border - November 26, 2018
Thank you for this Anna! I would also say a resounding NO for 4th District Court of Appeals Judge Terry B. O’Rourke.
San Diego Reader | Candid Justice
“The candidate is viewed as having one of the worst temperaments among San Diego judges,” the State Bar paper said. “[He] has a reputation for being mean-spirited and vindictive…has not provided fair and impartial justice…outbursts of anger…slamming books and other materials on the bench…insults attorneys…loud, confrontational behavior.
There was worse. The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation of the State Bar of California, usually called the Jenny Commission (after the initials JNE), cited criticisms of sexism and racism. “The candidate’s ill temperament and abusive behavior are disproportionately visited upon women…. He has been heard to make racially and gender-sensitive remarks such as ‘The quality of the bench has declined since governors have started pandering to women and minorities’; ‘Mexicans are the dregs of society’; and ‘We have to deal with all of this minority law practice.’ … Candidate’s behavior problems have become worse in the last decade.”
Sarah, thank you for providing this info. ORourke is in Division One, which is San Diego and Imperial County. That’s us, folks.
“Decidedly hinky.” I like that, Anna. I voted for Weinreb. I wish I had read Sarah’s comment before I voted — I would have voted NO on O’Rourke.
Thank you so much, Anna, for all the research. The only comment I have is that I wish your article had been available sooner. I’m one of those people who votes right after my ballot comes in the mail ’cause that’s what I thought the Dems suggest. I do the best I can with judges by asking my attorney friends, etc. However, this year I noticed after I mailed in the ballot, there was quite a bit of information going around about the judges. Hopefully next election those of you with the energy will again be willing to do some of the footwork for us!
Dianne, you are correct in noting that our efforts at SDFP to provide voter information don’t necessarily get in front of the curve of mail in ballots. That is the downside of having an all volunteer site. We talked about the elections months in advance, but we don’t have reporters to whom we can assign coverage. Editor Doug Porter has done an astounding job of providing analysis.
I am personally committed to providing earlier, more comprehensive coverage about judicial selections the next time around. Judges are important. The best of all possible worlds would be for a small group of volunteers to vet the candidates using the research tools offered by the League of Women Voters. Let me know if you would be interested in helping out with that effort Dianne. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
Hi Anna!
Regarding your “No” recommendation on Terry O’Rourke, from the same “Candid Justice” article in the Reader I found this:
“O’Rourke’s friends say it’s because of one thing: he is the judge who was largely responsible for exposing San Diego’s Superior Court judges James Malkus, G. Dennis Adams, and Michael Greer. The three were convicted two years ago of accepting gifts from prominent downtown lawyer Patrick Frega in return for giving him favorable treatment in their courtrooms. Their convictions rocked San Diego’s legal community. ”
According to the article, the accusations of him being racist/sexist were made anonymously following the exposure of corruption among other judges in the area. I have no idea if that’s just a cover story for him or if he really is being slandered. This is my first time voting for judges in an election and I have no idea what to do–but I figured I’d share this with you.
Sacha, after I read the Reader article, I did some additional research. The LAT article that I also refer to in the guide was written in Dec 1998. The “scathingly negative evaluation by a state bar committee” and the charges of misogyny and racism substantially predate the exposure of corruption.
Er, are you sure? According to this article (link), the actual investigation/ouster of the corrupt judges happened in 1993-1995.
Then the negative evaluation came in 1998 during his promotion to the appeals court. So the timeline concern pointed out by Sacha still stands, I believe. If the judge really did make those statements publicly then surely there’d be some record? From the LA Times article it sounds like heresay.
Jeff and Sacha, you are both correct about the dates of the corruption charges against San Diego Superior Court Judges James Malkus, G. Dennis Malkus and Michael Greer. They were convicted in 1996 and were appealing the conviction when the Reader article appeared in 1998. The charges did not occur after the LAT article as I incorrectly stated. Thank you.
That being said, it is incorrect to imply that the criticisms leveled against O’Rourke in the Reader and LAT articles arose exclusively or even largely because of his willingness to blow the whistle on his brethren for ethical violations.
According to a different LAT article, there were other substantive reasons for deeming O’Rourke unqualified. The fact that this particular judicial appointment is getting significant attention should encourage progressive voters to pay attention. Times staff writer Tony Perry notes this about ORourke’s tenure as a San Diego Superior Court judge:
“If there is a mold for San Diego judges, O’Rourke does not fit it. He has never been a prosecutor, never served in the Navy or Marine Corps, as many of the judges have, and appears to put little or no stock in collegiality. He has opted not to participate in social or professional gatherings.
At the same time, he is more politically attuned than most other San Diego judges and frequently reminds people of his friendship with Wilson, other big-name Republicans and Chief Justice George. He has had a series of run-ins with other San Diego judges over such issues as court assignments and caseloads.”
Fair enough. I certainly appreciate this blog post because I struggled to find any information on how to vote on these questions.
Before I found your site on the judicial elections, I had used those other sites (you noted above) to vote against whomever they said vote for. It was clear after a small amount of reading, I did not share their views. Thanks for the reinforcement. These are difficult to vote for given the limited amount of information being sent out on them and them totally being ignored in the usual mailers. I wanted to at least know if I was voting within my personal beliefs. Think I will hold on to this ballot to see if these names come up in day to day activities.
Richard M. Nixon was not impeached. He was investigated but not tried. He resigned in 1974 in an apparent impeachment dodge. A picky point, yes, but one worth making in the interest of accuracy. (You do want to be accurate, don’t you?)
You are absolutely right on both counts Michael. For the past two years my bio read that I left Pittsburgh the year in which Nixon was not impeached. For some reason it looked wrong to me one day and I changed it. And now I’ll correct it back to the original. Thanks for the eagle eye!
I’ve always blown off the judges on the ballot. This year, though, I’ve decided to do some research. Realizing that even these positions can have an effect on our way of life, a vote can make a difference. Came across your site while looking at O’Rourke. Very helpful. Glad I’ve been procrastinating and still have my ballot. Still a long list of names that I need to look at. Back to surfing for info. Thanks for the insight.
Michelle, please let us know if you have found helpful information or an approach that will make this process easier the next time around. Thanks for commenting.
Thank you, Anna, for this extremely helpful column. I, too, always try to find out all I can about the judges before voting. I know it makes a difference who is seated on the bench.
We really appreciate you putting this together. I always try to find out about these people but the research does take effort, going to the different sites.
Just adding my thanks Anna for all this you have here. Lucky *sigh of relief* I found this before I made my choices.
The sites you’ve listed as having more information really don’t have much. It would be great to have one site with all the important information about each person (certainly I don’t consider the fact that they coached their kids soccer team important). Jeez.
Chris, the short answer is that there is no single resource that compiles comprehensive information about each judge. I contacted the San Diego County Law Library with that very request and came up empty handed. The League of Women Voters does an amazing job of vetting and providing resource that can be consulted, but there is no one stop shopping on this issue.
In future elections it would be a terrific service to provide a mash-up of the myriad sources here at SDFP. With 14 judges on the ballot, that is no small task.
What is clear is that citizens want to be better informed about electing judges. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Only mentioning the Prop 8 ruling, out of all the cases you could have mentioned, clearly puts you in a liberal bias. ‘So much for clear objectivity.
G. Carter
See where it says Progressive Views at the top of the page? Sorry you missed that.
You are not sorry, and I did not miss it Its just that this review of judges is shallow, and a simple stamp of approval for judges on the left.
Here is an example of reporting, probably from the right on Liu. You don’t have to read the whole thing, but it gives an in depth view of the man, his lack of experience, and far reaching lack of disipline. I certainly won’t back him. GC
ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: Mr. Liu has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land:
Mr. Liu holds a radical view of constitutional rights. For example, in his 2008 Stanford Law Review article he supports a judicial role in establishing constitutional welfare rights—i.e., “affirmative rights,” to education, shelter, subsistence, health care and the like, or to the money these things cost. This is the view of rights President Obama raised that caused a stir, and which Judge Sotomayor rejected when asked if she took such a view during her confirmation hearing.
In a 2006 article entitled “Education, Equality, and National Citizenship”, Liu suggests that the Constitution “assigns equal constitutional status to negative rights against government oppression and positive rights to government assistance on the ground that both are essential to liberty.”
Mr. Liu has stated: “…it becomes pretty clear why ‘originalism’ or ‘strict construction’ don’t make a lot of sense. The Framers deliberately chose broad words so they would be adaptable over time.”
Mr. Liu recklessly attacked the nominations of Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In the case of Roberts, he wrote, in an op-ed, that “[h]is legal career is studded with activities unfriendly to civil rights, abortion rights, and the environment.” These unfounded charges were dismissed by judicial experts on both sides of the aisle and Roberts was confirmed with bi-partisan support.
Mr. Liu actually testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of Alito. Liu testified that then-Judge Alito was “at the margin, not the mainstream,” and that the America envisioned by his record on the bench “is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be.” Alito was also confirmed with bi-partisan support.
In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, Mr. Liu wrote that judges should engage in “socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal … to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society” and to “determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine.” According to a Washington Times editorial: “Mr. Liu’s goal was to create a judicially enforceable, constitutional right to welfare.”
It has been noted that Mr. Liu doesn’t meet the standards for federal judges outlined by the American Bar Association. These standards include “at least 12 years’ experience in the practice of law” and “substantial courtroom and trial experience.” Mr. Liu, who is only 39 years old, hasn’t even been out of law school for 12 years and has no experience as a trial lawyer.
42 of California’s 58 county district attorneys opposed Liu’s nomination in a March 2010 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying they believe Liu is hostile to the death penalty.
Mr. Liu implies racial quotas should continue indefinitely and in remarks before the American Constitution Society in August of 2003 advocates reviving “the idea of remedying societal discrimination as a justification for affirmative action.”
Mr. Liu offered an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in which he and others argued that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage (approved twice by the voters of California) was unconstitutional.
– See more at:
Gregory, thank you for making a case why progressives should vote to retain Judge Liu.
Anna
Your reply to Doug’s information seems to sum up the problem with our media’s failure to educate. Both of your replies were healthy…because they had differing opinions in the offering.
Our very system asks that we all have the right to view things with our own thoughts and values. However, in order to do so factually based information needs to be at hand.
If we could put together reliable conservative and progressive recommendations backed by traceable juridical history, coupled with the individual Judge’s case records that would be a site many could focus on ~ as they attempt to vote with facts behind their decisions ~ not the current snippets we get today. Snippets used mostly to persuade in an unbalanced manner.
We have the right to vote for a judge that “has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land” but let’s see that everyone gets to see both fact based sides of this coin when voting.
If there is a site out there that does this please advise.
Thank you and Doug for keeping this conversation somewhat balanced…
Gail
opps
Sorry Anna
That was your reply to George not Doug…
sincerely
gail
Those articles about judge O’Rourke were dated 1998, during the contentious hearing that was just after some judges got disbarred because of him. I do not know whether to vote yes or no for Judge O’Rourke, because both of those articles implied that some of the contentiousness might have been because he was a whistle blower.
Did I miss something more recent?
Thanks for the dope on O’Rourke. Of all the 4th district appeals court justices on the court’s site that are up for election, his was the only one that lists absolutely no significant achievements or distinctions, other than being the only Harvard JD.
I would have to say that those who voted for Kreep did absolutely NO investigation on the internet. If a judge has made controversial decisions you’ll most likely find some mention on the internet. It was quite easy for me to find that Kreep had the “birther” views and didn’t always support the rule of law – so I did not vote for him. So – for those voting – do a basic web search on the judge of interest and read a variety of sites to get a variety of insights before making a yay or nay vote.