Board President Aaron Peskin and current and former judges have a plea for Stop Crime SF: Stop meddling in judicial elections.
From the steps of City Hall, Peskin and a handful of lawyers gathered Thursday to condemn two recently announced election challenges against sitting San Francisco Superior Court judges. Both candidates are supported by the Stop Crime SF group, as well as a coalition of organizations that call for more punitive criminal sentences.
“I hope this court doesn’t become a political body,” said Judge Anthony Kline, the former presiding justice of California’s First District Court of Appeal. “You can buy a court in Texas, but you can’t buy a judge in San Francisco.”
Stop Crime SF, which includes other member organizations per its site, argued that the decisions of sitting Superior Court judges Patrick Thompson and Michael Begerts contribute to a “revolving door” of crime and repeat offenders.
“Judge Begert and Thompson are, by far, the worst judges on the Superior Court, and have a demonstrated track record of releasing serious and dangerous offenders back into the public. San Francisco is waking up to the role that these judges have played in worsening public safety,” said an emailed statement Thursday from Stop Crime SF president Frank Noto.
Thursday’s press conference resembled a civic lesson, and an elementary one: Peskin said today that one of the two judges targeted by Stop Crime SF does not even preside over criminal cases, and the second handles preliminary hearings, and thus cannot issue the “tough-on-crime” sentences that the group seeks.
The majority of superior court judges are appointed by the governor and serve a first term before being re-elected. Challenges in judicial elections are relatively uncommon — and Thursday’s speakers believed these recent ones went too far. “These races should not be countenanced. There’s nothing these sitting judges have done that rises to the level of removing them,” Peskin said.
Two challengers think otherwise. On Nov. 7, San Francisco Deputy District Attorney prosecutor Jean Roland, who has 22 years of prosecuting experience, announced her candidacy against sitting Thompson, who worked 30 years as a civil attorney before his 2022 appointment by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
A week earlier, Albert “Chip” Zecher, who was a private attorney and general counsel for Intevac Inc. corporation from 2013-20, declared he’d run against Begert, who was appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2011.
Begert works at the CARE Court, or Community, Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment Court. It grants court orders for mentally ill people to have a treatment plan. Begert, like any judge who would work there, is tasked by the state to issue mental health alternatives, and doesn’t preside over criminal cases.
Thompson presides over preliminary hearings to determine if there’s enough evidence in a case to hold a trial, and has only been on the job for less than a year after his appointment by Newsom. “He doesn’t even have a record that anybody could oppose,” Peskin said, referring to Thompson’s brief judgeship.
The judges, including former court justices Anthony Kline, Harold E. Kahn, and presiding Judge Teri L. Jackson, said today that judges’ law-based decision-making abilities, or judicial discretion, are limited by the state.
“If a judge doesn’t consider what they are required to consider, then they’re not doing their job, and should be held accountable,” Kline said. “It’s the job of the police to stop crime. It’s the job of the court to make sure the police follow the Constitution.”
Peskin also espoused the idea of governmental checks-and-balances with solemn importance, and the former and presiding judges detailed the ins and outs of their jobs. The verdict: Judicial elections should be reserved only to oust a judge who clearly violates their duty to uphold the Constitution.
The judges said encouraging frequent and politically fueled judicial elections could be a death knell for democracy. As with all elections, races and outcomes could be swayed by special interests, Kline said, potentially leading to corruption.
Additionally, flouting beliefs — such as “soft” or “tough” on crime, like Stop SF Crime suggests — raises serious questions for judges presiding on cases, said Judge Teri L. Jackson, the presiding Justice of the First Appellate District Court. She asked Thursday’s audience of mostly journalists to imagine a hypothetical situation in which an individual with a housing case came before a judge who declared themself pro-tenant or pro-landlord.
“Do you feel that that judge would be fair and impartial?” Jackson said. “We’re not here to be tough on crime or liberal on crime. We’re trying to apply the law.”
And checks and balances already exist, the judges argued. Under the rules of the California Superior Court, an attorney may request a judge to be removed from a case without reason, added Asian American Bar Association treasurer Kelly M. Matayoshi. If one believes a judge overstepped their discretion, a case can be appealed, though that rarely happens.
Though absent from the conference, candidates Zecher and Roland released statements criticizing it. They reiterated their qualifications and drive to make changes in San Francisco.
“My experience and qualifications to serve San Francisco as one of their judges speaks for itself,” a statement from Zecher said. “It is unfortunate that an elected official would jump to assumptions about who I am and how I would rule without knowing or ever having a conversation with me.”
“I look forward to engaging with voters about … the change I hope to bring, and having them decide who is best to represent them,” Roland stated. “I know people like to play politics, and it saddens me that an elected official would rush to judge me without having one interaction with me ever.”
Peskin said his views remained nonpartisan — he similarly denounced a liberal challenger to a sitting judge in 2018. “I opposed this from the left or the right.”
Board President Aaron Peskin should stop meddling with judicial elections. How is this an appropriate use of city time and resources – is this even legal?
This is actually infuriating. Does Peskin, et. al. think that these sitting judges are entitled to their seats on the bench? For better or for worse, we elect judges here, but everyone is just supposed to shut up and leave incumbents alone?
The irony of Peskin espousing “checks and balances” but then being anti-vote, which is the ultimate check and balance on government officials.
Anyone else notice that Mayor Breed’s primary reason for being revolves around fomenting voter outrage? Nearly every aspect of San Francisco has deteriorated during her time in office first as D5 Supervisor, then as President of the Board of Supes, and then inheriting the role of mayor upon Ed Lee’s death, and then finally as Mayor. Public transit. Public schools. SFPD. SFFD. Crime and punishment. Housing. Infrastructure. You name it. She is a failed mayor and policy maker. The 2 states of emergency she has called have accomplished nothing. The recalls she promoted have accomplished nothing. Breed exceeds at blaming others for her own failures. Hopefully, San Franciscans are smarter than that.
How we got here:
There are 50+ superior court judges in SF.
Almost all were appointed by the governor, a politician, as is most every superior court judge in the state.
They “run” for six year terms of office as incumbents but, if unchallenged, don’t appear on the ballot There have been 14 judicial elections in SF since 2000.
Judicial elections are on even year primary elections (low turnout).
If there are three candidates (uncommon, but it happens), the candidate with a plurality wins; there is no “instant run-off.
They are state employees and aren’t required to be residents of SF.
The California Supreme Court judges and Court of Appeal judges appear on the ballot to be affirmed (Yes) or rejected (No) but not the Superior Court judges.
List all of the SF superior court judges you know by name.
They run as incumbents but, if unchallenged, do not appear on the ballot.
Challenges are rare,
Turns out not only MAGAs hate democracy. San Francisco progressives do too.
Would like to see the challengers rebuttal to Peskin – seems like a good refutation but would be nice to see these arguments play out to some conclusion instead of the reader leaving inconclusive. If Peskin is right, it would be ridiculous for them to be running with that motive – which makes me feel like there is more to the story.
It doesn’t seem unimaginable that they’re running with that motive. Many aspiring politicians see San Francisco as a launching pad for their career. Nancy Pelosi started on the San Francisco Library Commission. There may be more to it, as you say, but San Francisco has in the past few years become downright silly about politicizing positions that are largely nonpolitical. Judges are meant to be impartial, and adding electioneering into the mix strikes me as a bad idea.
Thanks for providing those names. I am writing them out along with the beardy knucklehead.
I don’t care about Peskin either way but what he says makes basic sense. People in the comments section seem to think they know more about the court system that elected officials and experts (judges). This city is exhausting.
Thank you for this important piece. These challenges are cheap and stand to undermine work that has been done to make San Francisco a safer place. Support Judges Begert and Thompson.