By Adam AshtonCalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
California’s largest law enforcement union is urging voters to oust a state Supreme Court justice who it argues is moving to reopen criminal cases that it believes should stay closed.
The messaging in the Peace Officers Research Association of California’s campaign against Justice Kelli Evans echoes the only time in state history that voters booted California Supreme Court justices in a retention election. That happened in 1986 when voters swept out three justices over their rulings in death penalty cases. All three were appointed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who was philosophically opposed to the death penalty but did not take an official action to overturn it.
PORAC leaders acknowledge that this effort likely will not persuade enough voters to reject Evans, who Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed to the court in 2022. She is on the ballot for a retention election that would allow her to serve a 12-year-term.
Instead, the police union wants to put the judicial branch on notice that it’s watching how judges interpret recent laws that generally give incarcerated people more opportunities for parole and release.
“This is a warning shot that, hey, we’re paying attention,” said Ben Therriault, the union’s vice president.
Evans declined to comment on the PORAC ads. Legal scholars view the campaign as a threat to judicial independence and the impartiality of judges.
“To me it sets a dangerous precedent and it is not something that I would hope to see expanding,” said Mary-Beth Moylan, an associate dean at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.
Unlike federal judges, California judges do not receive lifetime appointments. Appointees to the Supreme Court and appeals courts are vetted by the state bar as well as by statewide officials, including the attorney general, before they can take office.
The state constitution requires them to stand for retention elections, although they generally do not participate in political campaigns. Many voters typically skip judicial questions on their ballots because they are not familiar with the judges.
“I suppose the idea is to root out any malfeasance or bad actions in office, but I think the fact that we have judges on the ballot is confusing to a lot of people,” Moylan said.
The election 40 years ago when voters rejected Brown’s Supreme Court appointees was a different story. The court under then-Chief Justice Rose Bird had angered the state’s business community with rulings against employers, which led businesses to bankroll a campaign against Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin.
Republican Gov. George Deukmejian campaigned against the justices, too, characterizing them as showing a “lack of impartiality and objectivity” in death penalty cases, according to CalMatters’ contributing columnist Jim Newton’s biography of Gov. Brown.
All three judges lost, allowing Deukmejian to fill their seats with his own appointees.
PORAC does not have anything close to that kind of political firepower in its digital messaging against Evans.
“Thankfully (the PORAC campaign) hasn’t gotten traction and it certainly hasn’t gotten attention. There’s no reason to believe it’s going to have any effect,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law.
The website PORAC created for its campaign against Evans draws on data originally compiled by the At the Lectern blog, which follows the California Supreme Court. The blog last year reported that Evans and Justice Goodwin Liu dissented dozens of times when their colleagues declined to review criminal cases.
“Justice Evans puts criminals ahead of victims and their families,” the PORAC website reads.
Evans joined the Supreme Court after serving as a judge in the Alameda County Superior Court and earlier as chief deputy legal affairs secretary to Gov. Newsom. She has worked as a special assistant to the attorney general and as a senior director at the state bar.
Criminal justice issues are appearing in front of the Supreme Court frequently in part because of laws adopted under Brown and Newsom that give incarcerated people more opportunities for parole and release. In addition, the Racial Justice Act allows people to contest their convictions or sentences if they can show that racial bias tainted proceedings against them.
The police union believes incarcerated people are “rolling the dice” with appeals to see if they can gain release under the recent changes in law. It also contends the laws are out of step with voters, who two years ago backed tougher criminal penalties for certain theft and drug offenses when they passed Proposition 36.
“From our perspective, there are several (justices) growing out of touch with where people are at in public safety,” said Therriault of PORAC.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Source: calmatters.org
