California’s largest police union is making a late push to unseat a state Supreme Court justice, arguing she has repeatedly sided with reopening criminal cases that law enforcement believes should remain settled.
The Peace Officers Research Association of California, known as PORAC, has launched a campaign urging voters to reject Justice Kelli Evans in next month’s retention election. The effort revives tactics not seen since 1986, the only time in California history that voters removed sitting Supreme Court justices. That year, three appointees of then-Gov. Jerry Brown — Chief Justice Rose Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin — were voted out after a fierce campaign centered on their death penalty rulings.
Union officials concede they likely won’t gather enough votes to remove Evans, who Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed to the court in 2022 and who is now seeking a full 12-year term. But they say that’s not really the point.
“This is a warning shot that, hey, we’re paying attention,” said Ben Therriault, PORAC’s vice president, explaining that the campaign is meant to signal to the judiciary that law enforcement is closely watching how justices apply recent criminal justice reforms, including expanded parole opportunities for incarcerated people.
Evans declined to comment on the campaign against her. But legal experts say the tactic raises troubling questions about judicial independence.
“To me it sets a dangerous precedent and it is not something that I would hope to see expanding,” said Mary-Beth Moylan, associate dean at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law.
Unlike federal judges, who serve lifetime appointments, California’s judges must periodically face voters. Supreme Court and appellate court appointees are vetted by the State Bar and statewide officials, including the attorney general, before taking the bench. The state constitution then requires them to stand before voters, though they typically avoid overt political campaigning. Many voters skip over judicial races entirely, unfamiliar with the names or their records.
“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 1986 ouster of Bird, Reynoso and Grodin unfolded very differently. Business interests, angered by rulings that favored employees over employers, bankrolled a major campaign against the court, and then-Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican, publicly accused the justices of showing a “lack of impartiality and objectivity” in capital punishment cases, according to a biography of Brown written by CalMatters contributing columnist Jim Newton. All three justices lost their seats, giving Deukmejian the chance to reshape the court with his own picks.
PORAC’s campaign against Evans doesn’t carry anywhere near that level of political muscle or funding.
“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 UC Berkeley School of Law.
The union’s campaign website relies on data first reported by the legal blog At the Lectern, which tracks the California Supreme Court closely. The blog found last year that Evans and Justice Goodwin Liu dissented dozens of times when the court declined to take up criminal appeals.
“Justice Evans puts criminals ahead of victims and their families,” reads the website PORAC created for the campaign.
Before joining the Supreme Court, Evans served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court and previously worked as chief deputy legal affairs secretary under Newsom. Her résumé also includes stints as a special assistant to the state attorney general and as a senior director at the State Bar.
Criminal justice cases have become more frequent before the state’s highest court in recent years, partly due to laws passed under both Brown and Newsom that expanded parole eligibility and release opportunities for incarcerated individuals. The Racial Justice Act has also opened the door for people to challenge convictions or sentences they believe were influenced by racial bias.
PORAC contends that many incarcerated people are essentially “rolling the dice,” filing appeals to test whether the newer laws might lead to their release. The union also argues that such policies run counter to public sentiment, pointing to voters’ approval two years ago of Proposition 36, which toughened penalties for certain theft and drug crimes.
“From our perspective, there are several (justices) growing out of touch with where people are at in public safety,” Therriault said.
Original source: CalMatters
