Campaign to Recall Judge Aaron Persky Heads to June Ballot

The campaign to recall Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky celebrated a big win earlier this week, when the Registrar of Voters announced it gathered enough signatures to qualify a measure for the June 5 ballot.

Proponents of the recall submitted nearly 95,000 signatures—well above the 58,634 valid names needed to land on the ballot, according to the registrar’s office.

“I’m happy to inform you that… we cleared the last hurdle,” Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor leading the recall effort tweeted to her followers on Wednesday.

Persky gained national attention after his highly criticized sentencing of Brock Turner, a former Stanford student convicted of sexually assaulting an intoxicated, unconscious woman. Prosecutors argued that Turner should spend up to six years in state prison, but the judge hewed to the algorithmically calculated guidance of the probation office, which suggested a relatively short stay in county jail. Many were shocked when Turner walked free after only serving half of his six month sentence.

District Attorney Jeff Rosen criticized Persky’s sentence, but said he opposes the recall because it could undermine judicial independence. The Santa Clara County Bar Association has positioned itself against the recall for the same reason.

Come June, voters will be asked to weigh in on two items related to the Persky recall: whether the judge should be removed from the bench and who should replace him.

So far, only one candidate has put her name in the running—assistant district attorney Cindy Hendrickson. If voters oust Persky this summer, it would be the first judicial recall in California in 87 years.

Although qualifying for the June primary ballot is a big milestone for the campaign, the final hurdle will be getting voters to oust Persky in the primary this summer. The election will come two years after Persky’s controversial ruling, and amid the #MeToo movement, which continues to remind voters of the of the harsh realities women experience at the hands of powerful abusers.


    • Got it! You are a racist and hate Mexicans. I am sure your name is not Jack. There are many racist judges on the benches. They are also gender bias. The Santa Clara Bar and the Commission for Judicial Performance oppose the recall. Persky’s name will be on ballot. The Commission for Judicial Performance has filed suit against the California State auditor in order to stop the first California State Audit on Commission for Judicial Performance. Persky also tried to stop recall with a law suit. Persky and the Commission for Judicial Performance have to be accountable to the Santa Clara County voters and Californians. Enough with the judicial corruption!

  1. > Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor . . .

    Michele Dauber, a tribal leader and shaman of the Woman tribe . . .

    Identity politics. Nothing to do with civilization.

    Send this paleolithic hunter gather and her tribal warfare back to her “tribal lands”.

    • Is she even an attorney? The Stanford law school website say she’s on the faculty on there by virtue of her expertise in sociology. A J.D. degree is listed, but membership in any Bar organization is not and her knowledge of California criminal law and the rules of court is woefully deficient. Moreover, an attorney is duty bound to show due respect to judges and the court and not spread misleading and defamatory information about judges and the bench, which we can see not only in her hysterical campaign against Judge Persky but in the demagogic comments on the recall website that assert the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency that regulates the judiciary, is somehow biased and corrupt.

      • Joe, She is not an attorney. Has never represented a client in her life. Has never appeared in court. You are absolutely correct that her crusade is full of misrepresentations and falsehoods. But the mob cannot be confronted with facts. It only serves to confuse and frustrate them. They hypocrisy is intolerable. They rail against Trump for his attacks on the judiciary, yet this is ok with them. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

      • > The Stanford law school website say she’s on the faculty on there by virtue of her expertise in sociology.

        Very significant.

        “Sociology” is really a bogus academic “subject”, not related to the classical education pillars embodied in the Trivium and Quadrivium.

        It really only became a formal academic subject area around the beginning of the last century.

        “Sociology” is basically just the formalized academic study of people in groups, e.g. “tribes”.

        Think of Michele Dauber as a “Professor of Tribalism”.

    • People used to believe Blacks were not whole humans, so they could be slaves. Some who had opposing thoughts were called tribal and wre killed for defending their ideas. And there is SJOUT in 2018!

      • > People used to believe Blacks were not whole humans, so they could be slaves.

        There are people TODAY who believe that white males, married females, Christians, and Asians who work for high tech firms in silicon valley are not whole humans.

        They believe that these less than humans are only good to be tax slaves.

  2. Since these she-devils targeted only the sentencing judge and not the professionals at the probation department who recommended the sentence, we are left to wonder if there is some feature about the probation department that allowed it to go un-targeted? Are its employees and its decision-making processes somehow less deserving of criticism and retribution than is Judge Persky? After all, we have seen several cases in the last decade where female groups have focused their ire and hysteria at a law enforcement agency and/or the county prosecutor in sex cases they felt were improperly investigated and/or insufficiently prosecuted, so these politicized crones certainly have no qualms about targeting agencies. Might the probation department’s pass have something to do with the demographics of its highly-diverse and disproportionately feminized workforce? Was Judge Persky’s real error in this case being too demographically convenient? Is it the judge’s race and gender, and not his ruling, that is the real target of Michele Dauber’s lynching campaign?

    Ask yourself this: with taxpayers funding the agency to the tune of approximately $172 million a year, why has the news coverage of this “controversial decision” never even included the name of the probation department’s chief officer (Laura Garnette), second in command (Diana Teves), or next in line (Roseanne Rodarte)? None of them have even been publicly grilled. Are we supposed to pretend that the agency’s budget is insufficient to hold it accountable for its sentencing decisions? Or should we just assume that with progressives in charge in this county reason and justice must always take a backseat to political agenda?

    • Aren’t you defending the Gilroy Police Officers who engaged in sexual misconduct? Your opinion is more of the same. You are pro sexual aggressors!

      • > You are pro sexual aggressors!

        Speaking of aggressors, your response is a PERFECT passive aggressive response.

        Your copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” must be very dog eared.

  3. Over the years I can think of a whole lot of Judges I’d rather seen thrown out on their butts than this one.
    Let’s start with the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, the most overturned court in US history that seems to think its job is to write its own law rather than interpret it.

  4. In the mold of the Trump campaign, Dauber is targeting the basest emotions. “Rape culture is on the ballot.” That’s what I’ve been told by her crusade to unseat a well-respected (former DA of Sex Crimes) who has been on the bench for many years. How do you vote for an idea? How do you recall an APPOINTED judge who has not done anything wrong other than sentence a college freshman? Where did the critical thinking go when Trump was elected? Did we all lose our collective minds? Or are we this susceptible to triggers that we can’t even see straight anymore?

    As yourself, if you are upset every time Trump attacks a judge for doing his/her job (in any court in this country) and have been upset every time he appoints his minions—why on earth are you ok with this crusade? Why? American needs to THINK again. Then it will be Great Again.

    • > American needs to THINK again.

      You first.

      I find your conflation of Michele Dauber’s primitive tribalism with the Trump campaign to be “meritless”.

      Trump’s “attacks” on politicized judges was completely warranted. Obama apparently appointed some real “progressive” beauties to the bench.

    • Persky has a history of lenient sentencing for White Privileged Males. His supporters, Julia A Emede, Joseph Huber, Phillip Pennypacker, so on and on, all are part of the same corruption. People do not care about the opinion of judges and attorneys because many of them have their own corruption story to share. This corruption is no longer a secret!

      • Been screwed over a few times in the courtroom? That would make sense. Probably family court, my guess. Can’t help you there. I’ve practiced in counties up and down this state and federal court. You want to recall judges? Go to LA County where at least one was bounced for sleeping with a witness in chambers. You want to recall judges and intimidate judges? Go to Turkey. Go to Poland. Our democracy is stronger and better than your judicial intimidation. We will not sit back quietly while the mob runs rampant over this branch of government.

      • Just the fact that you included the name of Phillip Pennypacker in your list reveals you as a crank. The guy spent the best part of his career as a public defender in this county, serving a clientele that was far from privileged, seldom white, and almost never worth the effort.

  5. Here we have yet another effort by the shrill, hysterical, “Vaginistas” to shift accountability away from the female and onto a (presumptively insensitive) male judge as just another focal point for yet more shameless, yet socially acceptable, man-hating bigotry. Let’s not lose sight of the extenuating circumstances and mitigating factors that the abominable judge Persky had to take into account when deciding on a sentence in the precipitating case.

    Both of the participants were drunk. This is not to excuse the male for his drunken behavior but the female participant was also extremely, voluntarily, intoxicated; so drunk that, supposedly, she didn’t even know she had engaged in sexual activity until someone else told her she had. There is then no way of knowing how coherent she actually was at the time that the encounter occurred and before her apparent alcohol induced blackout rendered her incapable of recalling if she had consented or not. However, holding the female accountable for her actions is anathema to the misandrists.

    Both sexes participate in unwanted sexual activity but laws with broad definitions of rape are like laws making 55 mile per hour speed limits for men and no speed limits for women. While we increasingly hold people more responsible if they drink and drive, we hold women less responsible if they drink and have sex. Despite evidence proving extensive false rape accusations, feminists persuaded the courts and the public that women had no motivation to lie about rape. Rape shield laws support the rape of the falsely accused and now these same harpies are raping the justice system again with their blatant attempt at judicial intimidation.

  6. When you talk about Stanford Campus Atrocity Case, you got to also give a fair reference to the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case [Stanford police case number: IR #04-111-0335; Victim: Peter Cao; Criminal Suspect: Gabriele Scheler] (http://alturl-dot-com/pa672)? It is a case in which a female had repeatedly and sexually assaulted a male; and the female criminal suspect had recanted her testimony later on and falsely accused the male victim on term of ‘sexual assault’ in order to escape from facing lawful consequences while retaliating on victims; While my statements are filled with real substance which can withstand public scrutiny, Scheler’s case was suppressed by the same set of officers from Santa Clara DA’s Office led by Mr. Jeff Rosen who are over blowing Brock Turner-Emily Doe’s case;___ So, as a victim of over 13 years, I have first hand experience talking about Stanford Campus Atrocity Case, and I know where the problem is and I’d be glad to share it with you;

    • Peter:

      The link you provided can’t be reached.

      I would like to know more about your case.

      How about one that works.

  7. Ms Dauber is a perfect creation of the new left, Direct Action is the medicine for anyone who does not toe the line. You better get with the narrative and demonstrate some empathy or you’re next buddy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *