Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The group working to unseat Santa Clara County Judge Aaron Persky for alleged judicial bias has decided to delay placing a recall on the ballot until next summer given the cost of mounting a special election this November.

Palo Alto resident Michele Dauber, chair of the Recall Persky campaign and a Stanford University law professor, said she “immediately” decided to postpone the campaign to June 2018 after learning recently about the difference in cost.

The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters estimates it would cost taxpayers about $6.9 million to hold a special recall election this fall, compared to $576,075 next summer.

The discrepancy in cost is because there are no other items slated for the November 2017 ballot, according to the Registrar, while there are at least three other countywide races scheduled for next June (for district attorney, sheriff and assessor).

Dauber said she believes that the new election date, while not the campaign’s first choice, will not affect the outcome of the recall. She launched the recall movement last summer amid widespread furor over Persky’s six-month sentencing of former Stanford student Brock Turner for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on campus. The recall campaign has since alleged that other sexual violence cases Persky oversaw demonstrate a bias for privileged, white defendants and against women and defendants of color.

“To me, there really wasn’t a choice once we learned the cost differential,” Dauber told the Weekly. “We’re confident we’re going to win whether this happens in November or June.”

The recall campaign has raised more than $400,000 so far, Dauber said, and will start gathering the 58,634 voter signatures required to put the recall on the ballot early this summer. The campaign will have 160 calendar days to gather signatures, after meeting a series of requirements for its recall petition and securing approval from the county elections official, according to the Registrar.

Persky did not return a request for comment left for his court clerk in San Jose, where he now hears civil cases. Persky launched an official anti-recall campaign in September. His “Retain Judge Persky” website states he has a “reputation for being fair to both sides” and he “took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to appease politicians or ideologues.”

Persky, who was first appointed as a judge in Santa Clara County in 2003, ran unopposed and was re-elected to a new six-year term in November.

Panteha Saban, a longtime Santa Clara County public defender who opposes the recall, told the Voice’s sister paper, the Palo Alto Weekly, that she hopes the delay will provide time for the campaign to “speak to respected prosecutors and defense attorneys who work in the trenches of the courtroom to really ask them whether this recall is actually in the best interests of the residents of this county.

“I don’t think it is,” she said.

Saban said she hopes Santa Clara County voters see the recall as she does: “an attack on our independent judiciary and the discretion of judges to make individualized decisions about people’s lives that they really believe is just.”

Who might oppose Persky as a candidate in June remains to be seen, although Cindy Hendrickson, an assistant district attorney on District Attorney Jeff Rosen’s executive team, told the San Jose Mercury News that she is “strongly considering a run.” Hendrickson declined to comment further to the Weekly.

Once a recall election is called, a nomination period kicks in for candidates to file for election to the office, according to the Registrar’s Guide to Recall. The guide notes a possible exception: Under the California constitution, there is some “legal uncertainty” as to whether the successor to a recalled judge would be elected by voters or appointed by the governor.

If a successor election is included, the Registrar of Voters estimates that it could cost about $533,000.

Anita Torres, a spokesperson for the Registrar, said her office could not confirm with certainty, but believes this is the first recall of a judge in Santa Clara County’s history.

In research her campaign has conducted, Dauber said they found only four instances in California history when judges were successfully recalled: one in 1913 in San Francisco and three in 1932 in Los Angeles.

The Palo Alto Weekly has created a Storify page to capture ongoing coverage of the Brock Turner case and related issues. To view it, go to storify.com/paloaltoweekly.

Join the Conversation

No comments

  1. The judge followed the advice of the probation officer who recommended the lenient sentence. Is Dauber also trying to have that officer fired? If not then this will just repeat itself next time the probation officer decides to go soft on somebody.

  2. It may have been the probation officer’s recommendation but as a judge you still do not have to abide by the recommendation, it’s his choice in the end. Judge Persky should have reviewed the severity of the crime. Had that been a friend, relative, or daughter, I bet that would not have been the outcome of this awful case. I’m not even going to bring in the race card, which is also of concern. I truly think this judge should be recalled. How Brock Turner only received the next to NOTHING sustenance is so beyond me. Money also has it’s rank and privilege in Brock Turner’s case.

  3. I agree with JR; the judge followed the recommendation of the probation officer. For the public who think the defendant should have been sentenced to 15 or 20 years in prison, I don’t think the judge could have imposed a sentence that was so far off the probation report. I think the main problem with this case is that the District Attorney’s office should have brought a charge of sexual assault or attempted rape. It was difficult for me to find information regarding EXACTLY what occurred as opposed to the public outrage comments. After reading the FACTS that came out in the trial, I changed my mind and came to agree with the judge. I think someone should investigate this Stanford law professor who is pushing this recall because she seems to be responding the headlines and public outrage rather than the actual facts of the case.

  4. This misguided campaign to unseat a respected judge should be abandoned. The non-lawyer’s motives must be questioned.
    No, do not blame the victim. Blame people who now seek notoriety at her emotional expense and at the public’s financial expense.
    Who wrote the probation narative, Prof. Dauber? It does not appear to have been written by one person.

  5. There’s more than one kind of cruel and unusual punishment. Why can’t we be like Malaysia and publicly whip Brock, but dispense with this idea of registering as a sex offender. It’s hard not to see that by itself as a severe
    punishment in its own right, which does nothing to help make sure this type of crime doesn’t get committed again. Ms. Dauber has repeatedly says that the drunken stupor in which the perpetrator and victim both found themselves had no connection to the crime.

    That shows how much of an ideologue she truly is.

Leave a comment