So, that's nice. Good to have more persons involved. But anyone considering recall should start by reading what proponents served as their written reasons for the recall. The statement refers to bias as evidenced by the judge's handling of five cases - not just the Brock Turner case. And while I am not (yet) convinced that recall of this very well regarded judge is justified, the MV Voice should next provide the proponents' statement of reasons and the response from Judge Persky. They are limited to 200 words each.

One would imagine that these are the 5 cases referred to in this paragraph quoting the letter:

The professors also argue that other sentencing decisions the recall campaign has pointed to as evidence of judicial bias "followed the equally common and legitimate practice of accepting a recommendation agreed on by the prosecution and defense."

To recall a judge for such behavior seems highly questionable, as does the rhetoric that excoriates the Judge rather than the underlying system which is what they really undermine by this campaign.

This story understates the concern of the Persky court action. They are not just arguing that this recall belongs before the Secretary of State. More importantly they are also arguing an issue which the county elections handbook cites as ambiguous about judicial recall. The issue is a perceived ambiguity in whether replacement judges would be elected or appointed. I believe this is because the election code assumed a dichotomy between replacing recalled municipal judges and replacing recalled judges of the Superior Court of California. Even if the court finds that a recall supervised by a county elections officer is OK, there is a separate issue about the petition assuming that the replacement will be by direct election, which is different than for any other new judge of the Superior Court of California. The petition can't just determine points of law by itself. The election code is not ambiguous, it's just relative to the former courts differing operations where there were both elected municipal judges and appointed Superior Court judges who only faced voters in the case of a reelection.
Dauber's wrong. This is not just a stalling tactic but a very important consideration that needs to be resolved by judicial action.

Trial court judges have been elected as long as I remember (many decades). They are appointed only if a vacancy occurs. But the game is for judges to retire before they seek a re-election so as to permit the Governor to appoint the successor who then faces election as a sitting judge. In any event, the current procedural issues were to be resolved at or following a hearing on August 23. It will not likely matter whether a replacement would be selected on the same ballot (if the recall petition gathers enough signatures). That is a side issue - probably not even part of the pending petition for writ of mandate. But I have not seen what has been filed. Let's wait to see the ruling(s).

I can't find the text of the recall petition online, but as I understand it, the petition as worded assures the signer that a successful petition will result in the election of a new judge on the same ballot where the recall is voted on.

But this campaign is most concerning and quite strange. Back in June Dauber's students wrote her an open letter asking her to back off from this crusade against judicial independence. Web Link

Now recently the recall campaign are asking that the assigned judge be removed from the case. Web Link

I don't buy the first amendment issue. They can circulate whatever they want, just not as part of an officially certified recall campaign while the TRO remains in effect. Certainly the publicity assists their efforts n the future. The TRO just mitigates the damages of potentially mis-informing the signers about the official recall vote.