Measure to recall judge qualifies for June ballot

Judge Persky handed out a common "sentence" in this type of case - the very disposition recommended by the probation department and routinely approved in plea bargains made by the DA's Office. Cindy Hendrickson would not likely have done anything different. The case led to a change in state law - creating a greater minimum punishment if there is a conviction. Most rapists and molesters are never caught - let alone convicted. That is the far larger problem - that we live in a society in which a doctor can molest 150 young gymnasts before being stop.

Anyone who reads the transcript of the sentencing for Brock Turner could easily see that Judge Persky was "taken" with Turner. Persky continually ignored the proven lies presented by the Prosecution. The Probation Dept should be fired for their terrible handling of the Turner case...The incredible irony is the filing of the appeal by Brock Turner has probably sealed the fate of Judge Persky...Persky had shown in a number of cases his lack of proper judgement and his prejudices. Its clear he will be gone in June....

Not having read the trial transcripts I'm reluctant to question the Judge, but it's worth noting that the "victim" was quite forward in her interactions with Brock Turner at the party. She left the party with him voluntarily.
Had she not passed out drunk, there would have been no issue. This is not a case of traditional rape.

If the Judge really has a history of lenient sentences, why didn't anyone run against him in 2016 when he was last on the ballot?

The recall can't unring the bell. It is meant to intimidate judges.

Yes! Vote him off the bench - should have happened years ago.

@Pat,

Are you kidding? Because she was "forward" with him at the party and she "left the party with him voluntarily"this wouldn't have been an issue had she not passed out drunk?
First of all, SHE DID pass out drunk. Right there, the interaction ends. She's passed out drunk. She certainly can't give affirmative consent (which is the law) and beyond that, why is someone having sex with an unconscious person??
Beyond that, even if she walked out the back door with him, why does that mean she wanted to have sex with him? Maybe she felt she had too much to drink and she wanted air. Maybe it was loud in the party and she wanted to talk to him. Maybe there are a million reasons why she walked out the back door with him. It doesn't give him the right to rape her.

I'm sick that there are those in our community who still think this way. No wonder we have problems in our society, in our high schools, everywhere. Sick.

This is a modern day witch hunt against a judge who followed sentencing guidelines. Mr. Turner is also a lifetime registered sex offender, it seems unlikely that an extra 6 months or year in jail would make a dent in that other punishment over his lifetime. This recall is a grand example of single-issue politics driven by a law professor on a mission. I'd be more outraged if he got 5 years and dodged the sex offender registration. [Portion removed.]

Persky recallers on your mission of judges giving increased punishment, I have a question. Given that the guideline sentence wasn't enough, what should the correct sentence have been? I'd like to from each of you in case you're successful in removing Mr. Persky from his judgeship and are selecting someone with more agreeable sentencing guidelines. Mr. Turner should get lifetime sex offender registration plus how many years in jail? What was the right number of months/years in addition to lifetime sex offender registration, since that's what seems to hold this recall in its balance.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

I, a woman, was harassed aggressively and repeatedly by a large man over several weeks at my neighborhood Safeway grocery for signatures. In over 20 years of living here, with numerous organizations and political campaigns respectfully asking for signatures, this was the first time I ever experienced aggressive harassment by a signature collector. Safeway management repeatedly warned the signature collectors based on daily complaints from customers feeling harassed, and at a point asked the signature collectors to leave. In another recent article on this topic, other readers also reported being harassed at their grocery stores. Hence, it's no surprise that Michele Dauber's recall Persky campaign [portion removed] achieved the required number of signatures with their aggressive tactics. But what's even more interesting is how many of those signatures are invalid.

@ Quote: "A random 5 percent sampling of 4,727 signatures found that 3,389 were valid, the Registrar said."

Wow, that's over 1,000 signatures that were invalid in a 5 percent random sample, over 25 percent! Perhaps those invalid petition signers felt pressured by an aggressive signature collector and purposely didn't put all their info or gave incorrect info? Having over 25 percent invalid signatures seems an extraordinarily high number to allow an issue to proceed to the ballot.

He did not "rape" her in the legal or usual sense. He did not have intercourse with her. He may not have been aware (in the dark) that she passed out.

[Portion removed.]

Turner's life is more ruined than hers. He had no history as a sexual predator, and his sentence was within the norms. I give the Judge the benefit of any doubt.

Serious victim blaming going on here. Good insight into Persky's perspective, thanks for that at least.

2 years is the statutory minimum without a finding by the judge of special circumstances. Had Persky given the minimum he wouldn't be facing a recall.

Calling a signature gathering and voting exercise under the Constitution a witch hunt is the kind of overheated anti-democratic rhetoric we've seen out of pro-Persky people. Probably from talking points prepared by Persky's campaign manager, who also ran Trump's Arizona campaign.

Good to underline that last point. When someone who claims to be progressive tells you they support Persky, ask why they are supporting a man who has an anti-woman, anti-gay Trump operative running his campaign.

[Portion removed.]

I briefly choked on my coffee when I read PTA Member's post, saying someone supporting Persky must be a Trump supporter. Calling somebody a Trump supporter because they support Persky is sort of a bizarre, Trumpian twist on Godwin's Law: the more you disagree with someone, the faster and more virulently you insult their perceived political leaning.

The crux of this issue is Judicial Independence. The recall motion ultimately is not about Brock Turner, Emily Doe, or even Michelle Dauber (as far as I can tell, she isn't even a lawyer). It is about how a functioning democracy requires-- demands-- a judicial branch that is free from outside interference, bullying, or intimidation. If we create an environment where judges have to fear that every single one of their decisions may be unpopular to the self-appointed Very Important People in the community, then our democracy is doomed.

Take every single core value you feel strongly about, and I can almost guarantee that somewhere in the history of our nation, some judge made a legal ruling that created, strengthened, or defended that value. Civil rights, workers' rights, religious freedom, women' rights, gay rights, etc., all required a judge to take a stand and make a decision. Do you really want to undo this fundamental pillar of our nation?

We can debate the facts of the Turner case all day. That isn't the point. Today it is the Turner case, yesterday was the Muslim Travel Ban, and tomorrow may be a DACA case. We want judges to make their rulings based on their education, training, experience, and understanding of the legal principles and precedents that this country is founded upon. If they are wrong, then let the judicial mechanisms work to correct their error: appellate review, judicial peer review, etc.

Taking away judicial independence leaves us with executive and legislative branches that can ignore the will of voters, pander to special interests, and carry out authoritarian acts that are antithetical to democratic, progressive values. Gee, that sounds like something a Trump supporter could get behind.

Vote NO on this recall.

Imagine - a family member falls unconscious in a public area. Perhaps it’s a heart attack or a diabetic coma. It could be a stroke, a drug OD, drunkenness, any number of serious medical conditions.

Now, someone finds them. The obvious thing to do is to call 911 and try to flag down assistance. If it’s cold or raining, cover them with your jacket. Be there when help comes so the responders can quickly find the person who needs help, who is possibly experiencing a life threatening condition.

Under these conditions Turner made a very different choice. He choose to attack and violate the unconscious person.

A judge is just that - the person entrusted by society decide where, within the technical sentencing guidelines, which range from lighter to stringent, the sentence belongs. In this case, Persky chose 6 months in lieu of 2 years for a man who violated basic tenets of our society - that if you come on someone who needs assistance, you offer them help. You do not attack them.

Those of us who are voting to recall Persky disagree with where he is choosing, within the technical options, to make his decisions in several rape cases. It is our right to vote for a judge, and our right to recall him or her.

Hope the voters are made aware of Michelle daubers tweet regarding [portion removed] Brock turner

Vote NO on this recall

Pat said: >He did not "rape" her in the legal or usual sense. He did not have intercourse with her.<
Because he was interrupted by the passers-by. He was clearly in the process.


Pat said: >He may not have been aware (in the dark) that she passed out.<

He couldn't tell from her limp body that she was passed out? [Portion removed.]

Persky certainly hasn't exhibited much judicial independence. He always seems to go ultra easy on male athletes who abuse women, look at his record, and seems oblivious to the plight of their victims, again, examine his record.

The prosecution refuted Turner's claims that he hadn't had substance abuse problems before arriving to Stanford, but Persky ignore the evidence they provided and instead said that he just took Turner at his word. This is the opposite of judicial independence, this is a judge who decided to believe a proven liar while ignoring facts presented to him through evidence.

This case has nothing to do with judicial independence. It's a clear legitimate democratic attempt to remove a bad and biased judge who does not deserve to sit on the bench.

There are many trolls on this post trying to influence public opinion against the recall, highly unsurprising considering who Persky's campaign manager is. I doubt many would be fooled. Persky will be recalled by a huge margin come June. it's a shame he has four more months to do his thing.

Any bets on by how wide a margin the [portion removed] judge will be cast out by? Let's all drive the needed lesson home!

Persky hired Trump's Arizona state director to run his campaign. That doesn't mean that you have to be a Trump supporter to support Persky. It means Persky is a Trump supporter.

Posted by PTA Member, a resident of College Terrace:

>> Persky hired Trump's Arizona state director to run his campaign. That doesn't mean that you have to be a Trump supporter to support Persky. It means Persky is a Trump supporter.

It shows further lack of judgement on the part of Persky. Here is the website for Brian Seitchik's RDP Strategies. Check out the clients at the bottom of the page -- normally, these would be the ones you are most proud of.

Perhaps the judge who sentenced Larry Nasser did so at least in part out of fear of being "Persky'd"?

Michele Dauber is a hero like it or not. The community needs more people like her, who use their knowledge to protect or help victims. She shall get an award of some kind. Hope she gets one soon.

Midtown Resident has it right:

"A judge is just that - the person entrusted by society decide where, within the technical sentencing guidelines, which range from lighter to stringent, the sentence belongs. In this case, Persky chose 6 months in lieu of 2 years for a man who violated basic tenets of our society - that if you come on someone who needs assistance, you offer them help. You do not attack them.

Those of us who are voting to recall Persky disagree with where he is choosing, within the technical options, to make his decisions in several rape cases. It is our right to vote for a judge, and our right to recall him or her."

I am among those who greatly appreciate the tireless efforts of the many volunteers in our county, including Michele Dauber, who are bringing this important issue to the ballot through the recall process provided for in the California Constitution.

I'm not sure why the nay-sayers appear to be so offended by this exercise of democratic rights by citizens of this state who believe in the importance of this issue. After all, those who disagree with the recall are free to vote "no" and have their voices counted right along with those voting "yes." Let's trust the voters with this decision, as the California Constitution envisioned. Democracy in action!

I would love to hear Jordan Peterson's take on this. Unfortunately I expect it is outside his radar.

Rational thinkers are few and far between.

Posted by A Noun Ea Mus, a resident of Professorville:

>> Perhaps the judge who sentenced Larry Nasser did so at least in part out of fear of being "Persky'd"?

Or maybe the judge saw a long-term serial pattern and imposed the maximum sentence because the defendant could never be safely released back into society? Do you think the sentence was too long? Why?

No one, certainly not the public or Dauber’s chorus or the folks commenting here, is as informed about the two people involved in this case or the event itself as those closest to process. There is a lot of opinion and speculation about an event that lacks much evidence and is largely circumstantial. No one here - and certainly not Dauber - knows exactly what happened. The woman’s statement is just her statement. The judge, court, probation, etc had to evaluate what little information they had and the circumstances, character statements, etc. Part of the problem with this recall is the public lacks enough information to evaluate the conduct of the two young people involved and the details of the judgement. People think the charge alone is sufficient but it’s not. The public isn’t and shouldn’t be voting based on a campaign against campus drinking, athletes, the latest target of the women’s movement or the personal anger or agenda of one professor.

Shield the victim yes, but her age (older), state of intoxication, and actions are not irrelevant - she may own some responsibility just as we all own resonsibility to be in control and make safe decisions. [Portion removed.] Many immediately assume her to be the complete victim. But the point is, no one outside the inner circle of this case knows and perhaps no more than two know for sure.

We don’t want things like this settled in the streets with people demanding control of the courts. That would be an extremely bad outcome. We elect judges so that they can present their credentials and experience to the public, not to politicize the judiciary. This recall crusade is creating a lot of damage.

Brock Turner was convicted in a jury trial of 3 felony sexual assaults. George's calling that "charges" and saying that "no one knows" what happened is false. The facts are settled. The question is, was Persky's sentence of 3 months in county jail for 3 sexual assaults just, or did it represent bias in favor of privileged white defendants? That is a question for voters, as Persky is an elected official.

Persky has turned to a political operative with a long track record of anti-woman, anti-gay campaigns to run his campaign. Voters should look at that decision as additional evidence of Persky's attitude towards women and sexual assault.

Posted by George, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> Part of the problem with this recall is the public lacks enough information to evaluate the conduct of the two young people involved and the details of the judgement. People think the charge alone is sufficient but it’s not. The public isn’t and shouldn’t be voting based on a campaign against campus drinking, athletes, the latest target of the women’s movement or the personal anger or agenda of one professor.

I have enough facts regarding the particular crime. The real discussion here is about Judge Persky. Does he have good judgement? Is he biased? Let's talk about that. If you have evidence to bring forward, do it. What I have to go on are his poorly considered words at the Brock Turner sentencing, and, his hiring of a right-wing political consultant to stave off the recall.

>> We don’t want things like this settled in the streets with people demanding control of the courts. That would be an extremely bad outcome. We elect judges so that they can present their credentials and experience to the public, not to politicize the judiciary. This recall crusade is creating a lot of damage.

One straw man after the other. This will be settled in the voting booth, not the streets. Mobs won't be controlling the courts. Judges are almost always asked back; this will be an exception. And Persky's own consultant has worked for candidates that have made great efforts to politicize the judiciary, so, the last argument is particularly absurd.

All the "street" arguments are an appeal to fear. But, the fact is that if Persky is recalled, it will be the public not asking him to continue working for him. We've all "not been hired" for some specific job, "not asked to come back", etc. If Persky is recalled, we, the public, won't be asking him to continue working for us. It is that simple.

Exactly, anon. Calling people voting a "mob" is just silly. Trying to delegitimize the electoral process is part of the Trump playbook. Not a surprise, given a campaign that is snuggled up close to the Trump campaign.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

[Portion removed.]

@George-the campaign to recall Persky won't be settled in the streets. He is an elected official. He serves at the People's pleasure, and he can be removed by the voters of Santa Clara County, who put him on the bench. His fate will be settled in the most democratic place possible, the ballot box.

The recall says, “we will not let this egregious behavior go unnoticed.” It is in part a vendetta against a specific judge.

But since the vast majority of the judge’s peers think his actions were well within “business as usual,” a recall will also impact them, as is the desire of those who want a recall.

The impact will be to establish protection against their own recall. That will likely include standardized punishment for sexual assault, and higher levels of punishment for sexual assault.

Which communities are likely to be hurt most by higher levels of punishment for sexual assault?

Which communities pushed hardest for lower levels of punishment for non-violent crimes?

It has become a battle of identity politics. It is a wedge between identities within the moderate left.

The message of the recall is that judges should not give short jail terms to privileged perpetrators of felony sexual assault. That's who will suffer from the recall. The beneficiary is the women of Santa Clara County.

Please read ERWIN CHEMERINSKY (Dean of UC Berkeley Law) op-ed against this recall:
One of his comments is particularly important: "On January 11, Dauber stated at a press conference that the California Constitution Center, a non-partisan academic research institution at Berkeley Law, concluded that this recall will not harm judicial independence. This is flatly incorrect."

Web link: Web Link

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

He's gone, as it should be. Let's try not to get another one even worse.

This is not a harm to judicial independence at all, and these kind of baseless and biased accusations are only to allow continued abuses of the judicial system such as this to continue.

The judicial branch is missing some kind of feedback, especially looking at the Supreme court. There is nothing that says the people should not have some kind of input to the judicial, and judicial independence is important for insulating political bias, but how has that actually worked? Not that great.

It is a serious question, but applying it to this case if absurd. It's happened over the span of years, and it puts judges on notice that their decisions are being evaluated by the public. If the public is convinced enough to follow a judge over a span of a long time and take action, that is not a threat to judicial independence, it is more of a threat to judicial political and class bias and incompetence.

Everything is bought, and the buying class owns more and more every year due to mathematical principles of scale written about by Thomas Piketty, that is far more of a threat than the amazingly lengthy and determined process it takes to censure or get rid of a judge that people deem bad. There needs to be some democratic ( small-d ) balance.

Remember From 1789 to 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, senators were elected by state legislatures. When that did not work for the people, elections were instituted. There may a need to do that with the judicial is some way, and that would be the time to worry about judicial independence and how to protect it, not this case. This is a care of yelling fire in a crowded courthouse.

Yes, I have been completely horrified by the anonymous unsubstantiated complaints on Town Square of grocery store harassment. Apparently 100k voters in Santa Clara County were grocery store harassed into signing the recall petition.

I've looked at the Berkeley report. It says that the California Constitution balances judicial independence with accountability by making it difficult to get a recall on the ballot. The law school Dean is part of the circle the wagons protect the club crowd I wouldn't be surprised if it's part of the campaign bring run by Persky's Trump operative, frankly. This is all an attempt to distract from the real issue, Persky's bias against women.

On June 5, 2018 VOTE YES to recall STANFORD RAPE CASE JUDGE Persky and Rape culture. It is up to us SANTA CLARA COUNTY'S VOTERS to hold White Male Privilege biased judges accountable for favoring privilege male offenders with their lenient sentences at the expense of women, children, and other minority groups affected by this White Justice Culture and violence.

Posted by NotSure, a resident of another community:

>> Please read ERWIN CHEMERINSKY (Dean of UC Berkeley Law) op-ed against this recall:

It is an interesting claim. I might almost have been inclined to go along with it, if not for the -real- attack on judicial independence that we are being subjected to every day by right-wing authoritarians. Some of whom have been Brian Seitchik's clients.

Web Link

I was sitting on the fence until Judge Persky hired Seitchik.

Web Link

Oh, and here is another link for people who would like to see more about the original case.

Web Link

The only threat this recall campaign represents is to white privilege. It's a shame that US voters can't recall U.S Supreme Court justices. Some of them are just as bad and as biased as Persky.

Thanks Anon -- the Trump operative running Persky's campaign is Brian Seitchik. One bad hombre.

By any reasonable measure, six months in jail and three years of probation for committing three felony counts of sexual assault is unjust. The sentence might be within judicial guidelines but so was a prison stay of up to 12 years and Persky had the absolute discretion to make the decision. He also has a track record of taking it easy on athletes who appear before him.

It would have been better for someone to step up and run against him in the last election, but I understand why that didn't happen. A recall seems to be the only way to prevent him from doling out additional unjust sentences in such cases.

I'm wondering why those who question Persky's sentencing of Brock Turner aren't questioning what Kim Diorio and Vicki Kim didn't do for our kids, two of whom alleged sexual assault at PAHS and alleged that the administration failed them. How is that so different, except that Kim Diorio and Vicki Kim never disciplined the Oct. 2016 respondent at all, according to the $846,000 Cozen report. They also never completed an investigation or came to a determination of what happened in the same incident, again according to the $846.000 Cozen report that we paid for. Still waiting on a report for the Nov. 2015 incident. Why is everyone silent on this one?

[Post removed.]

I am 100% on the victim's side in this case and was appalled to see that some of the posts on here are again blaming the victim, saying she is responsible for what happened to her. Yes, she made a poor decision to drink too much, but that is NOT an excuse for what was done to her. How can anyone think this way? If she were your daughter, would you feel this way? Brock Turner has been hurt more than her?? How???!! He [portion removed] will be just fine. Mommy and Daddy will see to that. This poor girl will never be the same. His sentence was outrageous, face it. He got off with a slap on the wrist, which would not have been the case if he had been a person of color and everybody knows it. And before you say it, I am white, but that doesn't mean that it's ok for a white person to commit a horrible crime and not pay for it. He deserved serious jail time and he didn't get it, he didn't learn his lesson and he will probably do this again. Will the victim blamers stick up for him again? Probably. I feel terrible for this poor girl and I ask God to bless her and help her heal. [Portion removed.] As for this so called judge, the people will get him out and hopefully he'll get what coming to him too.

Look at the judge in the MIichigan sports doctor case for how sexual assault should be handled. Persky practically brought Brock Turner milk and cookies while he moaned about how important it was to avoid having a severe impact on Turner.

That's the same impulse that led Persky to pick up the phone and call Trump's Arizona state director when Persky got in trouble for not taking sexual assault seriously. After all, Brian Seitchik already helped Trump with the same problem.

The top comment in this article asked "Hendrickson any different?"

Cindy Hendrickson promises a justice system that will be "fair for all individuals", but she provides no data on her fundraising page to show voters that she won't be just as lenient as the judge she wants to replace. In fact, it was Hendrickson who didn't prosecute my perpetrator, a current Stanford employee, on charges of assault with a weapon, felony auto theft, child abduction, and extortion–even after criminal matters were brought to her attention twice by two different police departments. The equivalent of a prosecutor rejecting a case would be a judge dismissing a case. But Judge Persky did not dismiss the Turner case: Emily Doe received a trial and she got justice (a conviction), even if the sentence was not as long as what she would have wanted. Hendrickson did not hold my perpetrator accountable at all, and without any irony, she is running on the platform that, unlike Persky, she will "advocate strongly for victims." Until Hendrickson demonstrates to voters that she doesn't give violent offenders special treatment that isn't available to less privileged defendants, she will not get my vote. And she shouldn't get yours, either.

Mercury News reports a judge gave zero jail time to a rapist. Where does Dauber stand on this other judge?

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

This to me is the act of a frustrated group who's looking for revenge in any way they can because..."Someone's gotta pay!"

No, I won't be a part of this emotion fueled witch hunt I whole-heartedly disagree with the sentence and I find the lust for revenge by some equally distasteful.

We simply Do NOT throw out sitting judges because we disagree with how they serve within the law. If they violate the law, that's different. This revenge quest is not driven by broken laws on the judge's side, but by the differing opinions of some in the public. I won't ever back something like that.

Hopefully the electorate will show good sense and vote this measure into the trash can where it belongs.

Actually, this piece in Palo Alto Online tells you all that you need to know about Judge Persky:

Web Link