This is very interesting. California used to have a hodge podge of trial courts in addition to the superior court system. It was unified after some studies in the 1970's. Now ALL trial courts are part of the superior court system. Funding has been the main issue addressed over time following he reorganization, but it appears that judicial recalls were affected. It doesn't seem like there is any other way to look at this but that the Superior Court judge is a state official.

Too bad Ms. Dauber isn't a practicing lawyer, or maybe the campaign would have realized the correct form for their petition. I've heard her say this was a delaying tactic, but why did the recall campaign wait so long to get started? There was ample time to do legal research on what the procedure should be given many changes to the court structure since the last politically based recall decades ago. This is an important issue because the campaign implies all Judge Persky tries are cases involving sexual assault. Actually, it appears he hardly ever gets such a case. Single issue judges aren't something the court system can afford because it's very poorly funded.

I see the general issue: local judges are state officials. And a vacancy in a judicial office is normally filled by gubernatorial appointment and not by the election of a replacemment on the same ballot. I have not seen the legal arguments filed so far. The Los Angeles Times article reports that a hearing is set for August 23. It appears that the correct procedure for recalling CA Superior Court judges will be resolved promply, although the losing side might seek review by a higher court. Eventually, petitions will be circulated. The recall began as soon as Judge Persky was far enough into his new term (to answer the first poster). It could not have been started sooner. But going to the merits, Judge Persky is very well regarded in the legal community. Sexual attacks are under-reported, under-prosecuted and insufficiently punished. But did Judge Persky go easy on one or two offenders showing some indefensible bias or other wrong attitude? What is the argument for recall? Maybe proponents will add a comment next.

[Poster banned due to persistent violations of terms of use]

Searching online, I do see the statement of grounds for the recall presented by proponents linked to a June 26, 2017 NBC (local tv) story. Judge Persky's written response can be found at his campaign website. The claim by proponents is that Judge Persky is biased in favor of some well-off perpetrators of violence against women. Five cases are cited - not just the Brock Turner case. The response is that some agencies have rejected the claim of bias (perhaps, in part, based on so few cases for a judge who has handled hundreds). Judges are properly given wide legal discretion to be more lenient or severe with offenders depending on the specifics or the crime(s) and the offender. Most of the time, the sentence or terms of probation are part of a plea bargain between the prosecutor and the defense attorney. Plea deals are necessary in a system with limited resources. If any case cited by proponents involved the Judge's varying significantly from a probation department recommendation for disposition, such a case could be scrutinized. But the criticism that the system has been unduly lenient with sex offenders does not seem to me a valid basis for recalling a particular judge.

First Dauber said they would delay the recall until November 2018. Now it is June 2018 that they are talking about. I don't see the grounds to call that stalling by the subject of the recall at this point to be bringing up valid points of law. She is quoted as saying she scrupulously researched things and also in saying the most recent precedent was in 1933 when 3 judges were recalled in Los Angeles. I would be interested to know if these were judges of the Superior Court of California or if they were Los Angeles Municipal Court judges. Is there any precedent for recall of a Superior Court judge appointed by the governor? You'd think a law school professor would comprehend that there could be problems where there is no precedent for an action. I sure hope the governor still appoints the replacement given that this is a Superior Court judge. Maybe she's right about having an election for a Municipal court judge but there aren't any of those any more.

The last poster questions whether recall is even available for a Superior Court judge. Under the California Constitution, recall is available for all elected state and local officeholders. Judges are elected every 6 years but their names do not even appear on the ballot unless someone else runs for the seat. Vacancies are filled by appointment but then the appointed judge is up for election on the next ballot. In reference to the recall of state officeholders, Articie 2, section 14 of the California Constitution provides that supporting recall petition signatures must come from at least 5 counties. That section appears to show that a judgeship in a county is not a state office for purposes of the recall process. But I have not seen the arguments in this case.