Not to get Judgey...
It’s almost time for the General election! There is a LOT on the ballot in San Diego and California this year. There are so many useful voter guides out there, I’m not going to go through the effort of explaining my own. I find the San Diego Free Press and the San Diego League of Women Voters to be particularly helpful. I don’t agree with all of their recomendations, but it’s a good start!
There is very little info out there about what judges to vote for, and what a vote for a judge even means. Furthermore, any journalistic investigation on them is principly coming from the San Diego Union-Tribune. If you don’t have subscription, the site will limited you at 5 articles per month.
Which, seriously? For election articles? I get that you need to keep your ship afloat, but perhaps exceptions should be made for certain content around elections.
But never fear! I HAVE a subscription! So I’m going to summerize my thoughts on the judges here. Fair warning, though, I don’t have that much more information than you do.
For instance, it’s public information you can actually vote for every single judge that’s running. It just isn’t well explained. You aren’t voting for one judge. You’re voting for which judges get to keep their seats.
Ballotopedia explains it better than I can.
“Justices … are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the California Commission on Judicial Appointments. The state bar's Commission on Judicial Nominee Evaluation (the "Jenny Commission," made up of attorneys and public members) is required to perform extensive investigation on prospective appointees. The commission recommends candidates to the governor after examining their qualifications and fitness, ranking them as exceptionally well qualified, well qualified, qualified or not qualified.[2]
The governor is not bound to these recommendations, but he is held accountable to the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which is free to approve or veto the appointment by majority vote.[2]
If they wish to retain their seat, newly appointed justices are required to participate in yes-no retention elections occurring at the time of the next gubernatorial race. (Gubernatorial elections occur every four years). After their initial retention, justices will serve a full twelve-year term.[2][3] Judges' terms begin on the Monday after January 1 following their election.[4]
So if you vote “yes” for a judge, and so does most of the rest of the populous, judges will hold their seats for the next 12 year term.
The appointees have gone through a vigorous selection process. Voting yes on all of them is fine.
Well, all except Gary Kreep. And his race is different.
Kreep is running in the only contested judge race for San Diego County Superior Court against Matt Brower. You can only vote for one. Both are graduates from the University of San Diego. The GOP supports Kreep, the Dems back Brower. The San Diego U-T interviewed both of them, and if you don’t have a subscription you can’t read the transcripts. But you can listen to them. The U-T talked to Kreep for about an hour, and to Brower for about 45 minutes.
Here’s what you need to know about Kreep besides his party affiation. 1) The San Diego County Bar Association rated Kreep as “lacking qualifications.” 2) The state commission determined that Kreep engaged in 29 acts of judicial misconduct between 2012, when he took the bench, and 2015. He was close to being thrown off the bench, but maintains that he doesn’t agree with the misconduct charges. 3) He’s a birther. And if you listen to the interivew above, you’ll find out he’s pretty incoherent, reactionary, and accusatory about it. 4) He supported and defended Prop 8. 5) He has made disparaging and disgusting remarks to women in his presence including commenting on an attorney's pregnancy and the physical attractiveness of female public defenders. These comments are what he thinks are falsely labeled as misconduct.
Honestly, it’s easy to find articles about what a creep Gary Kreep is, as this is the only contested election.
So let’s review our yes/no votes for the rest of the judges.
Spoiler, it’s Yes for most of them. Some of them are conservatives, which I’m generally not in favor of. However, unless they have some extreme view, I’m in favor of keeping diverse and respectful opinions in the court. There’s only one I’m a big fat NO on.
Justice, California Supreme Court
Carol Corrigan – Definitely NO. Does not care for LGBTQ+ and is a Trump lover.
Ethically, Corrigan is the only one I can find I take major issues with. Some of the other judges have held there positions for 30 years. If you’re a believer in term limits, this may be reason alone to reject them. I don’t know if term limits are good for judges if their record reflects California well.
And that’s it!