Adam Ashton reports today for CalMatters that the state’s “largest law enforcement union” — the Peace Officers Research Association of California — has begun a campaign to deny Justice Kelli Evans a new term on the Supreme Court, urging a “no” vote on her retention at Tuesday’s election. She and Justice Joshua Groban are the only Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year.
The campaign focuses on Justice Evans’s 63 dissents from the denials of review in criminal cases during the 2024–2025 Supreme Court term. The article says that the PORAC no-on-Evans website “draws on data originally compiled by the At the Lectern blog, which follows the California Supreme Court.” Our statistical review of the court’s 2024–2025 term conferences is here. (Our 2025–2026 term review is here.)
The PORAC website says “Justice Evans went on record 63 times to reopen sometimes unspeakable criminal cases that juries and appeals courts had already decided and upheld.” It doesn’t mention that other justices also recorded dissents from review denials and, as we reported, many of the dissents came in cases that “raised the same or similar issues.” Also unmentioned is that Evans was often interpreting laws that the Legislature has enacted to expand the rights of criminal defendants, not making stuff up on her own.
More important, a judge’s good faith application of a constitution or statute is not an appropriate basis for a “no” vote. I subscribe to the principle stated by UCLA law professor — and Horvitz & Levy alum — Rick Hasen: “it is only proper to vote against a sitting judge when that judge has done something ethically improper (such as taking a bribe) or has consistently issued rulings that are unprincipled or intellectually dishonest.” None of PORAC’s criticisms of Justice Evans fall into those categories.
Related:
Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans
Secretary of State info about Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices’ terms and elections is here.
“California elections for top judicial posts: Big stakes, little info available to the public”
Under amended bill, Secretary of State, not justices, would prepare candidate statements
Legislation to limit Supreme Court elections won’t be re-introduced this year
The specter of more frequent “100-year floods”
“Thirty Years After a Hundred Year Flood: Judicial Elections and the Administration of Justice” (also here)
Video of judicial elections program available
“Diving legend Greg Louganis wants California Justice’s confirmation bid to belly flop”
