Aaron Persky recall, Santa Clara County, California (2018)

* Recall efforts
* Recall efforts by state
* Recall efforts by office
* Recall efforts by year
* Upcoming recall elections
* Local recalls
* City council recalls
* Mayoral recalls
* County commission recalls
* County official recalls
* School board recalls
* Sheriff recalls
* Special district recalls
* State and federal recalls
* State executive recalls
* State legislator recalls
* U.S. Congress recalls
* Laws governing recall
* States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls
* States that require grounds for recalls
* Analysis
* What are recalls?
* Recall terms
* Analysis (2010-present)
* 2025 year-end analysis
* 2025 mid-year analysis
* 2024 year-end analysis
* 2024 mid-year analysis
* 2023 year-end analysis
* 2023 mid-year analysis
* 2022 year-end analysis
* 2022 mid-year analysis
* 2021 year-end analysis
* 2021 mid-year analysis
* 2020 year-end analysis
* 2020 mid-year analysis
* 2019 year-end analysis
* 2019 mid-year analysis
* 2018 year-end analysis
* 2018 mid-year analysis
* 2017 year-end analysis
* 2017 mid-year analysis
* 2016 year-end analysis
* 2016 mid-year analysis

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge recall

Officeholders
Aaron Persky
Recall status
Recall approved
Recall election date
June 5, 2018
See also
Recall overview
Political recall efforts, 2018
Recalls in California
California recall laws
Special district recalls
Recall reports

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky was recalled on June 5, 2018. Cindy Seeley Hendrickson defeated Angela Storey to replace Persky.

Stanford University law professor Michele Dauber initiated the recall effort in June 2016 on the grounds that Persky was too lenient in his sentencing of Stanford student Brock Turner.

In a case that attracted national attention, Turner was arrested and charged with sexual assault in January 2015 after he was found lying on top of an unconscious woman on Stanford University's campus.[1] Turner was convicted of sexual assault, and Persky sentenced him to six months in jail, three years of probation, and registration as a sex offender. The maximum sentence for the charges was 14 years in person. The victim read an impact statement at his sentencing that was published by news outlets such as Buzzfeed and The Independent. Its publication was the catalyst for Persky's recall.

Recall supporters argued that Turner' sentence was too light and would negatively impact women's safety. Recall opponents argued that Persky acted appropriately during sentencing and that recalling a judge over one decision would violate judicial independence principles.

The recall election ballot had two parts: (1) a question about whether Persky should be recalled and (2) a list of nominees to succeed him.[2] Since a majority of voters voted to recall Persky, the nominee with the most votes, Hendrickson, was elected to the remainder of his term, which was slated to end in 2022.[3]

Persky and the campaign to recall him each submitted a statement to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters for inclusion on the ballot. Persky and Dauber also each formed a campaign committee: "Retain Judge Persky — No Recall" and the "Committee to Recall Judge Persky," respectively.[4]

The Persky recall election was the first judicial recall in any state to make the ballot since 1982, according to Joshua Spivak of The Recall Elections Blog. The last successful judicial recall in the country was in Wisconsin in 1977, and the last successful judicial recalls in California were in 1932.[5]

Click here to read more about the recall election's path to the ballot.

California voter? Here's what you need to know.

Recall Election| June 5, 2018
Candidate Filing Deadline| March 2, 2018
Registration Deadline| May 21, 2018[6]
Absentee Application Deadline| May 29, 2018[6]
Early Voting Deadline| Available from May 7, 2018, to June 5, 2018[7]
Polling locations: Go to this page to find early voting locations and your assigned precinct for election day.

## Contents

* 1 Recall results
* 2 Election updates
* 3 Candidates
* 3.1 Cindy Seeley Hendrickson
* 3.2 Angela Storey
* 4 Background
* 4.1 The case
* 4.2 Persky's career
* 4.2.1 Similar cases to Turner decision
* 5 Timeline
* 6 Polls
* 7 Campaign finance
* 8 Recall supporters
* 8.1 Professor Michele Landis Dauber
* 8.2 Prameela Bartholomeusz
* 8.3 Dolores Huerta
* 8.4 Ultraviolet
* 8.5 Palo Alto Weekly
* 9 Recall opponents
* 9.1 Persky's response
* 9.1.1 May 8 press conference
* 9.1.2 Interview with Palo Alto Daily Post
* 9.1.3 Interview with Mercury News
* 9.1.4 Comments by Persky attorney Jim McManis
* 9.2 Members of Congress
* 9.3 Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office
* 9.4 Group of Stanford law graduates
* 9.5 Group of retired judges
* 9.6 Group of law professors
* 9.7 San Francisco Chronicle
* 9.8 Palo Alto Daily Post
* 10 Debates
* 10.1 April 25 debate
* 10.2 April 20 debate
* 10.3 April 18 debate
* 11 Path to the ballot
* 12 State overview
* 12.1 Partisan control
* 12.1.1 Congressional delegation
* 12.1.2 State executives
* 12.1.3 State legislature
* 12.1.4 Trifecta status
* 12.2 2018 elections
* 12.3 Demographics
* 13 State election history
* 13.1 Historical elections
* 13.1.1 Presidential elections, 2000-2016
* 13.1.2 U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016
* 13.1.3 Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016
* 13.1.4 Congressional delegation, 2000-2016
* 13.1.5 Trifectas, 1992-2017
* 14 See also
* 15 External links
* 16 Additional reading
* 17 Footnotes

## Recall results[edit]

Aaron Persky recall, 2018

Candidate | Vote % | Votes
Yes | 61.6% | 202,849
No | 38.4% | 126,459
Total Votes | 329,308
Source: Santa Clara County elections

Aaron Persky recall (replacement candidate), 2018

Candidate | Vote % | Votes
Cindy Seeley Hendrickson | 68.0% | 174,045
Angela Storey | 32.0% | 82,042
Total Votes | 256,087
Source: Santa Clara County elections

## Election updates[edit]

* May 8, 2018: Persky holds a press conference to speak out against the recall effort.
* May 1, 2018: The California Supreme Court rejects Persky's final appeal to stop the recall.[8]
* March 26, 2018: The appellate court denies Persky's appeal to remove the recall election from the ballot.[9]
* March 20, 2018: A state appellate court hears arguments in an appeal by Persky to remove the recall election from the June ballot.[10]
* February 8, 2018: Attorney Angela Storey announces her candidacy for the recall election.[11]
* February 6, 2018: The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approves the recall election for the June 5 ballot.[12]
* October 2017: Attorney Cindy Seeley Hendrickson announces her candidacy for the recall election.[13]

## Candidates[edit]

The following candidates filed to replace Persky.[14]

### Cindy Seeley Hendrickson[edit]

Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Cindy Hendrickson ran to replace Persky by emphasizing her background in victim advocacy, experience as a prosecutor, and what she calls her sensitivity to implicit and explicit bias after growing up in a multiracial household.[15] She announced her campaign in October 2017.[13] Hendrickson donated to the Persky recall campaign and was endorsed by the recall effort's leader, Stanford law professor Michelle Dauber.[16]

Although she supported the recall, Hendrickson declined to express her views on the Brock Turner case or whether she believed that Persky erred in Turner's sentencing.[17] However, she did speak about her handling of sexual assault cases as a prosecutor, saying, "I felt like I really had an opportunity to make a difference not only in the lives of the victims but also in making the public more safe.”[15]

When asked about recalls in general, she said, " It's important that judges, who are making decisions about people's lives, that they reflect the values of the community they serve. If people in a community feel that a judge ceases or has never reflected those values, they have their right to use the tools of democracy."[16]

Hendrickson received her undergraduate degree from Stanford University and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles.[13]

### Angela Storey[edit]

Attorney Angela Storey ran to replace Persky despite her opposition to his recall. She said her experience in civil and criminal law would make her a fair and qualified candidate to replace him if he was recalled. She announced her campaign in February 2018.[11] According to Persky ally LaDoris Cordell, recall opponents generally supported Storey.[16] Mercury News also endorsed her.[18]

Storey said she opposed the recall (despite being a victim of sexual assault in college) because of judicial independence principles and the possibility that judges would give harsher sentences to people of color if they feared recalls.[16]

"From my perspective, a judge's job is to make difficult choices and to make rulings that people aren't going to always agree with," she said. "We don't want our judges necessarily looking over their shoulders trying to gauge public opinion."[19] She said that Turner's sentence was within the law, but she declined to say whether she agreed with it. She also called the recall a “dangerous precedent” and said that voters should focus on changing laws when they disagree with outcomes rather than removing judges.[11]

Storey worked as a trial lawyer in the insurance, construction, and business law fields after being admitted to the California Bar in 2001. She joined her husband's practice, afterward known as Storey & Storey, in 2013 and practiced personal injury law. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Los Angeles and her J.D. from Santa Clara Law School.[19]

## Background[edit]

### The case[edit]

Brock Turner was arrested on January 18, 2015, after two graduate students saw him lying on top of an unconscious and partially clothed woman behind a dumpster on the Stanford University campus.[20] Turner was found guilty of three felonies: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.[21]

Persky sentenced Turner to six months in county jail, three years of probation, and registration as a sex offender.[22] The maximum sentence for the charges of which Turner was convicted was 14 years in state prison. Prosecutors requested a sentence of six years in state prison, probation officers recommended six months in county jail, and Turner asked for four months in jail.[21]

Turner's victim, referred to as Emily Doe, read a victim impact statement at his sentencing. The statement was published by news outlets, including BuzzFeed News and the Independent, and was a catalyst for the recall campaign.[23][24][25]

### Persky's career[edit]

Aaron Persky was appointed to the Superior Court of Santa Clara County by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in September 2003. He was elected to a full term in 2004 and re-elected in 2010. He ran for re-election unopposed in 2016 and did not appear on the ballot.[26]

#### Similar cases to Turner decision[edit]

A central argument for the recall campaign was that Persky made five rulings similar to the Turner case where he showed bias toward white male athletes accused of assaulting women. Palo Alto Weekly, whose editorial board supported the recall, reviewed the five cases. The analysis can be read here.

The reporter conducting the analysis wrote:[27]

“  |

The five cases differ from the Turner case in that none went to a jury trial. All of the sentences except one were negotiated through plea bargains, meaning the district attorney's office and defense agreed to certain charges and punishments. In an interview with the Weekly, Persky described a judge's role in plea bargains as hands-off. It's rare for a judge to object to a plea deal on his or her own accord, he said.

The role of the probation department also differed across the cases. Some but not all of the cases had full probation reports, meaning the probation department interviewed the defendant and possibly the victim, conducted a risk assessment, reviewed the police report and made a formal sentencing recommendation to the judge. In two cases, Persky waived the referral to probation, meaning the report the department produced was limited. [28]

| ”

|
|

## Timeline[edit]

* January 18, 2015: Turner is arrested for sexual assault. He posts $150,000 bail and is released from jail later in the day.
* January 28, 2015: Turner is charged and pleads not guilty to two counts of rape, two counts of penetration, and one count of assault with intent to rape.
* October 7, 2015: The two rape charges are dismissed, and Turner is ordered to stand trial on the remaining charges in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
* March 30, 2016: Turner is found guilty of the three remaining charges by a jury.
* June 2, 2016: Persky sentences Turner to six months in jail and three years of probation and orders him to register as a sex offender.[29]
* June 6, 2016: Dauber says she will start a recall campaign against Persky.[30]
* June 9, 2016: Democratic political consultants Joe Trippi and John Shallman join the recall campaign team.
* June 10, 2016: The California Legislative Women's Caucus announces that it will raise money for the recall campaign effort.[31]
* September 2, 2016: Turner is released from jail, and the recall campaign holds a rally with 14 speakers, including Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt, Senate Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney, U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, California state Sen. James Beall Jr., and state Assembly member Nora Campos.[32]
* December 19, 2016: Persky is cleared of misconduct by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the state's judicial disciplinary agency.[33]
* June 26, 2017: The recall campaign files a notice of intent to recall Persky.
* August 9, 2017: The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters approves the recall petitions for signature gathering.
* August 11, 2017: Judge Marjorie Laird Carter approves Persky's request for a temporary restraining order against the recall effort.
* August 28, 2017: Judge Kay Tsenin lifts the temporary restraining order.
* October 2017: Santa Clara County assistant district attorney Cindy Seeley Hendrickson announces her candidacy for the potential recall election and begins raising money for her campaign.[13]
* January 11, 2018: The recall campaign submits its signatures to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.[34]
* January 23, 2018: The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters announces that it has verified enough signatures to qualify the recall for the June 5 ballot.[35]
* February 6, 2018: The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approves the recall election for the June 5 ballot.[12]
* February 8, 2018: Civil attorney Angela Storey announces her candidacy for the recall election.[11]
* February 14, 2018: Dauber reports receiving an envelope containing white powder and a rape threat.[36]
* March 1, 2018: Daniel Frisiello is arrested for sending white powder to Dauber, as well as to President Donald Trump's (R) son Donald Trump Jr., U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), actor and U.S. House candidate Antonio Sabato Jr. (R), and interim U.S. Attorney Nicola Hanna.[37]
* March 20, 2018: A three-judge panel of California's 6th District Court of Appeal hears oral arguments in an appeal by Persky to remove the recall election from the June ballot.[10]
* March 26, 2018: The appellate court rejects Persky's appeal to remove the recall from the ballot. According to the court, there was no "constitutional basis on which to delay the processing of the current recall petition."[9]
* May 1, 2018: The California Supreme Court rejects Persky's final appeal to stop the recall.[8]
* June 5, 2018: Recall election date[38]

## Polls[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

A KPIX/Survey USA poll released May 22, 2018, found that 49 percent of voters would vote to recall Persky, 36 percent were opposed to his recall, and 15 percent were undecided. Men supported Persky by a 3 percent margin, while women opposed him by a 26 percent margin. To replace Persky, 16 percent of voters favored Angela Storey, 15 percent favored Cindy Seeley Hendrickson, and 69 percent were undecided.[39]

An FM3 Research poll conducted from May 5-13, 2018, found that 46 percent of voters would vote to recall Persky, 33 percent were opposed to his recall, and 21 percent were undecided. Men supported Persky by a 7 percent margin, while women opposed him by a 30 percent margin. The poll surveyed 559 likely voters and had a margin of error of 4.1 percent.[40]

A KPIX/Survey USA poll released in March 2018 found that 56 percent of voters supported Persky's recall.[39]

A Sextant Strategies & Research poll found that 66 percent of respondents would vote to recall Persky. The poll, which surveyed 776 registered voters, was conducted from June 20-22, 2016.[41]

## Campaign finance[edit]

As of May 5, 2018, the committee to recall Persky had raised more than $1 million. It raised $322,785.38 in 2016, $365,159.78 in 2017, $273,206.04 from January 2018 to April 21, 2018, and at least $232,000 in late April and early May 2018.

As of May 5, 2018, the committees to retain Persky, No Recall of Judge Persky and Retain Judge Persky — No Recall, had raised about $890,000 combined. No Recall of Judge Persky raised $188,735 from January 2018 to April 21, 2018. Retain Judge Persky — No Recall raised $254,291 from January 2018 to April 21, 2018 and $446,751.47 in 2017.[42]

## Recall supporters[edit]

As of March 22, 2018, the following were listed on the Committee to Recall Judge Persky's website as supporters of the recall effort:[43]

Publications

* Palo Alto Weekly Editorial Board
* Verde Magazine of Palo Alto High School Editorial Board

Elected and appointed officials

* Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
* Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)
* Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)
* Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA)
* Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
* Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
* Former Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
* State Sen. Kevin de Leon (D)
* State Sen. James Beall Jr. (D)
* State Sen. Gerald Hill (D)
* Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D)
* Assemblyman David Chiu (D)
* Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D)
* Assemblyman Tony Thurmond (D)
* Former Assemblywoman Nora Campos (D)
* California Board of Equalization Chairwoman Fiona Ma (D)
* Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith
* Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Director Barbara Keegan
* Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Director Gary Kremen
* West Valley Mission Community College District Trustee Adrienne Grey
* West Valley Mission Community College District Trustee Randi Kinman
* Santa Clara County Board of Education President Michael Chang
* Santa Clara County Board of Education Vice President Rosemary Kamei
* Santa Clara County Board of Education member Grace Mah
* San Jose Vice Mayor Magdalena Carrasco
* San Jose City Councillor Raul Peralez
* San Jose City Councillor Donald Rocha
* Gilroy City Councillor Peter Leroe-Munoz
* Los Altos Hills Vice Mayor John Radford
* Milpitas Mayor Rich Tran
* Milpitas City Councillor Anthony Phan
* Former Milpitas Mayor Bob Livengood
* Monte Sereno City Councillor Curtis Rogers
* Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel
* Mountain View City Councillor Margaret Abe-Koga
* Monte Sereno City Councillor Evert Wolsheimer
* Palo Alto City Councillor Cory Wolbach
* Former Palo Alto Mayor Patrick Burt
* Saratoga City Councillor Rishi Kumar
* Santa Clara City Councillor Dominic Caserta
* Sunnyvale City Councillor Nancy Smith
* Alum Rock Union Elementary School District Board Vice President Andres Quintero
* Berryessa Union School District Board President Thelma Boac
* Berryessa Union School District Board Vice President Hugo Jimenez
* Campbell Union High School District Board Clerk and Trustee Stacey Brown
* Campbell Union High School District Board member Kalen Gallagher
* Cupertino Union School District Board member Liang-Fang Chao
* Franklin-McKinley School District Board member Omar Torres
* Former Franklin-McKinley School District Board member Maya Esparza
* Los Altos School District Board member Bryan Johnson
* Los Gatos Union School District Board member Daniel Snyder
* Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District Board member Cynthia Chang
* Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District Board Clerk and Trustee Katherine Tseng
* Milpitas Unified School District Board President Daniel Bobay
* Morgan Hill Unified School District Board member Gino Borgioli
* Mountain View Whisman School District Board member Jose Gutierrez, Jr.
* Orchard School District Board Clerk and Trustee Stephanie Hill
* Palo Alto Unified School District Board member Todd Collins
* Palo Alto Unified School District Board member Ken Dauber
* Palo Alto Unified School District Board member Jennifer DiBrienza
* Santa Clara Unified School District Board member Mark Richardson
* Saratoga Union School District Board member Sophia Kao
* Conejo Valley Unified School District Board member Betsy Connolly
* Former Palo Alto Unified School District Board member Amado Padilla
* Former Sacramento City Unified School District Board member Diana Rodriguez-Suruki
* Former California State Board of Education member Allen Seid
* Former state Sen. Jason Carter (D-GA)
* Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Chandra Brooks
* Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Shanta Franco-Clausen
* Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Suzanne E. Doty
* Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Jennifer Briscoe
* Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Teresa Fiss
* Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Yan Zhou
* Campbell Department of Parks and Recreation Chairwoman Celeste Walker
* Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioner Kavita Tankha
* Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commissioner Thida Cornes
* Santa Monica Landmarks Commissioner Richard Brand
* Santa Monica Commissioner Elena Christopoulos

Organizations and political activists

* South Bay Labor Council
* California Nurses Association
* Communications Workers of America, CWA Local 9423
* Region 7 California Democratic Party
* Democratic Party of California Chairman Eric Bauman
* Democratic Party of California Women's Caucus Chairwoman Christine Pelosi
* Democratic Party of California Executive Board member Andrea Reyna
* Santa Clara County Democratic Party finance director Prameela Bartholomeusz
* Santa Clara County Democratic Club
* Democratic Activists for Women Now Democratic Club
* Democratic Activists for Women Now Vice President Frances Herbert
* San Jose Brown Berets
* Feminist Majority
* Feminist Majority President Ellie Smeal
* Feminist Majority Policy Director Gaylynn Burroughs
* Feminist Majority Executive Director Kathy Spillar
* National Organization for Women
* National Organization for Women—New York
* National Organization for Women—New York City
* National Organization for Women—California
* National Organization for Women—San Diego
* National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill
* National Organization for Women—New York City Advocacy Director Jane Manning
* National Organization for Women—California President Jerilyn Stapleton
* National Organization for Women—San Diego President Michelle Gell
* National Organization for Women—Sacramento President Kolieka Siegle
* National Women's Political Caucus of Silicon Valley
* NARAL Pro-Choice California Director Amy Everitt
* Voices of Women for Change President Taraneh Roosta
* Women's Media Center President Julie Burton
* Former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile
* Bay Area Women's March President Jenny Higgins Bradanini
* United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta
* Women Donors Network President and Chief Executive Officer Donna Hall
* Bay Area Women's March co-organizer Jennie Richardson
* Tabla African Theater Ensemble co-founder Viera Whye

Community figures

* XQ Superschool Project Chief Executive Officer Russlynn Ali
* Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Marcella Alsan
* University of California at San Francisco Medical School Professor Tamara Alliston
* Y Combinator President Sam Altman
* Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Ben Barres
* Dartmouth College Professor Susan Brison
* Carleton College Professor Anita Chikkatur
* Lex Machina Chief Executive Officer Josh Becker
* Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Richard Bland
* Attorney Lisa Bloom
* Film producer Nina Yang Bongiovi
* U.S. House of Representatives candidate Bryan Caforio (D)
* BlogHer co-founder Elisa Camahort
* Thinkspace founder Peter Chee
* Writer Adolpha Cole
* Palo Alto community leader Gina Dalma
* Film director Kirby Dick
* Redpoint partner Satish Dharmaraj
* Stanford University Professor Emerita Sandra Drake
* Film producer Lena Dunham
* Pixar photography director Danielle Feinberg
* Comedian Nikki Glaser
* Greylock investor Sarah Guo
* U.S. House of Representatives candidate Josh Harder (D)
* Peninsula Open Space Trust Board of Directors member Christy Holloway
* Author John Hodgman
* Greylock partner Reid Hoffman
* Sense of Wonder co-founder Erin Hoffman-John
* University of California at Berkeley Professor Victoria Kahn
* Internet Law Center founder Bennett Kelley
* Crowdpac founder Gisel Kordestani
* Author Jon Krakauer
* Television producer Stephanie Laing
* LifeSite co-founder Crystal Lee
* U.S. House of Representatives candidate Mike Levin (D)
* Filmmaker Kamala Lopez
* IVP general partner Jules Maltz
* Musician Connie Lim
* Elka Cholo Re host Paphia Nandy
* Stanford University Professor David Palumbo-Liu
* Wildlife Conservation Network Director Rebecca Patton
* Clever Girls founder Stefania Pomponi
* Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Marlene Rabinovitch
* Writer Michaelene Risley
* Writer Arnold Rudnick
* Girls Who Code founder Reshma Saujani
* Asian Americans for Community Involvement co-founder Mary Chan Seid
* Filmmaker Jill Soloway
* Vanderbilt University Professor Ronnie Steinberg
* Actor Sharon Stone
* Poet Amber Tamblyn
* San Jose City Council candidate Omar Vasquez
* State University of New York at Old Westbury Professor Judith Walsh
* University of Southern California Professor Carol Wise
* Parenting magazine founder Robin Wolaner
* Women Donors Network member Wendy Wolf
* Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Sophia Yen
* Film producer Amy Ziering

Law professors

* Harvard Law School Professor Howard E. Abrams
* University of New Hampshire School of Law Professor Ann Bartow
* Stanford Law School Professor G. Marcus Cole
* Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Stephen F. Diamond
* Stanford Law School Professor Michele Landis Dauber
* Stanford Law School Professor Emeritus Ronald J. Gilson
* Stanford Law School Professor William H. Neukom
* University of Denver School of Law Professor Nancy Leong
* Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig
* Saint Louis University School of Law Professor Yvette Joy Liebesman
* Yale Law School Professor Tracey L. Meares
* Northwestern University Professor Laura Beth Nielsen
* Rutgers Law School Professor Sarah E. Ricks
* New York University Law School Professor Christopher Sprigman

### Professor Michele Landis Dauber[edit]

Dauber was the leader of the recall campaign against Persky. She was a friend of the family of Turner's victim.[44]

Dauber told The Guardian that Persky's ruling made women at Stanford and across California less safe. "The judge bent over backwards in order to make an exception... and the message to women and students is 'you’re on your own,' and the message to potential perpetrators is, 'I’ve got your back,'" she said.[45]

### Prameela Bartholomeusz[edit]

On May 2, Prameela Bartholomeusz, the co-chair of the committee to recall Persky, issued the following statement on the second-to-last judicial recall in California in 1913 and compared it to the Persky case:[46]

“  |

In 1913, businessman Albert Hendricks was caught trying to assault two 17-year-old girls, but he skipped town after San Francisco Judge Charles Weller reduced his bail from $3,000 to $1,000. Local women’s clubs led the effort to recall Judge Weller for “extending undue and unreasonable leniency to persons charged with the commission of heinous and vicious offenses.”

Weller’s was the first of only two successful judicial recalls in California’s history. Note that it did not lead to an onslaught of whimsical recalls, and it did not lead to substantial enough concerns about judicial independence for our constitutional right to recall judges to be revoked. It did, however, remove an elected official who had lost the faith of voters that he could fairly preside over sexual assault cases.

In that same vein, I will be voting to recall Judge Aaron Persky on June 5. I encourage my neighbors to do the same. [28]

| ”

|
|

### Dolores Huerta[edit]

Dolores Huerta, the co-founder of United Farm Workers, was featured on a campaign mailer sent out by the recall campaign in May 2018.[47]

### Ultraviolet[edit]

The women's advocacy group Ultraviolet submitted a petition to remove Persky to the California Commission on Judicial Performance on June 10.[48] The group also installed a digital billboard on the San Mateo Bridge that read "Protect Survivors, Not Rapists. Tell the California Commission on Judicial Performance that #PerskyMustGo."[49]

### Palo Alto Weekly[edit]

The Palo Alto Weekly editorial board wrote the following in support of Persky's recall on May 11, 2018.[50]

Click [show] to see the editorial opinion|

|

|  | “  |

While the campaigns for and against the recall of Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky argue vociferously over each other's campaign tactics and the details of past sexual assault cases handled by Persky, the fundamental question for voters is how to strike the right balance between judicial independence and accountability to the community. Both are not only possible, but essential.

Judge Persky and those opposing his recall argue that nothing short of illegal behavior, incompetence or gross misconduct should be cause for removing a judge. If done for any other reason, they believe, judges will be intimidated into imposing harsher sentences out of fear they too might be recalled. The fact that the California court system has had only two previous recall elections in its history, with the last one 86 years ago, strongly suggests otherwise.

But more importantly, the California Constitution provides for this process and gives voters the absolute power to recall judges for any reason.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal judges lifetime appointments, the California Constitution requires that state judges stand for election every six years and allows for recall elections between regular elections upon submission of valid signatures of 20 percent of a county's registered voters, an extraordinarily high bar. It provides no guidance as to the standards for removal from office, leaving it to voters to make their own judgment.

So challenges to the very legitimacy of this election are unfair, undemocratic and directly contradicted by the law. Those who don't like the recall provision have every right to seek a change in the Constitution, but they have no right to criticize those who are availing themselves of the legal opportunity to challenge the fitness of Judge Persky to remain on the bench.

It is equally wrong to suggest that a recall election is anything other than an early vote on a judge that must stand for election anyway. Had Judge Persky coincidentally been on the ballot this year for re-election instead of four years from now, the campaign would have been no different except there would have been no burden of gathering almost 100,000 signatures nor any debate over the Constitutional recall provision.

Similarly, we find the argument that appointment of judges by the Governor is more likely to insulate the judiciary from political influences than the election of judges to be disingenuous and irrelevant. First, Gubernatorial appointments are inherently and obviously political, and done entirely in secret. But more importantly, that is not the issue before voters.

Instead, voters must decide whether or not Judge Persky's use of his discretionary sentencing powers in sexual assault cases has furthered the interests of justice and created an environment where victims of sexual assault will find the process fair and worthy of being re-traumatized during a trial.

On this question, we believe Judge Persky has failed the community so badly that he must be replaced.

A unanimous jury, after hearing all the evidence and testimony, convicted Stanford freshman swimmer Brock Turner in 2016 of three felonies for his sexual assault of an unconscious woman on the ground outside a Stanford fraternity. The Turner case was a rare instance of a sexual assault being witnessed and interrupted by uninvolved passersby. Two graduate students riding by on their bikes intervened, chased Turner as he attempted to flee and held him until police and paramedics arrived. Sexual assault cases rarely get any stronger than this one.

Persky's six-month sentence of Turner, which resulted in Turner only actually serving three months due to the standard 50 percent reduction of time for "good behavior," undermined the jury verdict and stunned the nation for its leniency. It sent exactly the opposite message hoped for by the victim and those seeking to reduce the high incidence of sexual assault on college campuses.

Under California law, the presumptive minimum sentence for Turner's convictions was two years unless the judge found, as did Judge Persky, unusual mitigating circumstances. The District Attorney asked for six years. But the probation department recommended just six months based on Turner's age, his lack of a significant criminal record (he had already been arrested earlier in his first quarter at Stanford for drinking) and on incorrect information about Turner's previous high school experience with drug and alcohol use (he asserted to the court his first use was at Stanford).

We will never know the damage done by Judge Persky's minimal sentence of Brock Turner and how many future victims of sexual assault will choose not to press charges out of fear that a judge might similarly upend a jury verdict by imposing a diminutive sentence. But that threat is far more real and potentially dangerous to our judicial system than the remote possibility that the removal of Persky will strike fear in other judges and lead to inappropriately harsh sentences of convicted defendants.

Judge Persky abused his discretion, disrespected a jury, failed a crime victim and broke trust with the public he serves. There is no judicial accountability if these failures don't lead to his removal from office. [28]

| ”

|
|

## Recall opponents[edit]

### Persky's response[edit]

Persky filed his formal response to the recall on June 30, 2017. The response quotes former Judge LaDoris Cordell asking people not to sign the recall petition and notes that the judicial ethics commission investigated the Brock Turner sentence and found no bias. Below is an excerpt from Judge Persky's response:[51]

“  | Judge Persky is a former prosecutor and advocate for battered women. As a judge, he has made thousands of decisions. It’s unfair to recall him over one controversial decision.

Judge Aaron Persky: 'As a prosecutor, I fought vigorously for victims. As a judge, my role is to consider both sides. California law requires every judge to consider rehabilitation and probation for first-time offenders. It’s not always popular, but it’s the law, and I took an oath to follow it without regard to public opinion or my opinions as a former prosecutor.'[28]

| ”

|
|

—Judge Aaron Persky[51]

#### May 8 press conference[edit]

Persky held a press conference on May 8 where he laid out his opposition to the recall. He said he had intended to remain silent about the recall but changed his mind after the pro-recall campaign began spreading what he called false claims about his record. He said judges should not have to think about public opinion when making decisions.

He also said the recall had negatively impacted his young children, who found negative flyers advocating his recall, and his wife, who he said was unsure which members of the community supported his recall and which did not.[52]

#### Interview with Palo Alto Daily Post[edit]

Persky and two of his supporters, retired Palo Alto Judge LaDoris Cordell and Santa Clara University law professor Ellen Kreitzberg, spoke with the Palo Alto Daily Post on May 2. Persky said the recall campaign threatened the "sanctuary" of the courtroom by bringing in public opinion. Cordell and Kreitzberg said this issue was more important than in 1932, the last time a California judge was recalled, because of the rise of social media and special interest groups.

“What we’re seeing in this election and in elections that are taking place in the last couple of years is, if you can put together some funding, you can engage in a campaign that can put out… completely false information,” Kreitzberg said. “It is out there in the universe and you can’t ever retrieve it. So I think it’s much more dangerous in these days about how quickly misinformation can spread, how pervasive it can become.”

Persky added: “The people who need an independent judge are everybody who walks into a courtroom. The last thing that a litigant wants to worry about when they enter that courtroom and see that person up there in the black robe, which suggests complete neutrality, … ‘Is this judge even a little bit worried about what people think about what he or she is about to do? What social media thinks? How is it going to play on Facebook? How is it going to play on Twitter?”[53]

#### Interview with Mercury News[edit]

Persky spoke to the editorial board of Mercury News on April 19, the first time he extensively discussed the recall. He said he supported efforts to change how sexual assault victims go through the criminal justice system, but that recalling him would not improve things.

He did not regret his sentencing of Turner, saying, " When the case came out and there’s the social media outrage, my personal opinion was that I can take the heat, I signed on to this job, I promised to essentially ignore public opinion.”

He also said that he was prevented from fully defending himself by ethics rules that prohibit him from discussing pending cases.

He worried about the implications of the recall, saying, “If the recall is successful, what does it mean for individual litigants? Is this judge going to be worried about what the Twitterverse thinks about what he or she does? The collateral damage here is to the individual future litigants and to public confidence in the judiciary.”[54]

#### Comments by Persky attorney Jim McManis[edit]

On May 25, 2018, Persky's attorney, Jim McManis, told Vogue magazine that the victim in the Turner case had not been attacked and mentioned that she had been drinking before the incident took place.

McManis also said he had a report that the statement from the victim was “written by a professional battered women’s advocate from the YWCA.” He said he had not verified the report.

In response, Michele Dauber that McManis was “rank victim blaming,” and that the claim that the victim did not write her statement was “untrue and completely inappropriate.”[55]

### Members of Congress[edit]

U.S. Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D) and Anna Eshoo (D) released a joint statement in May 2018 where they endorsed Perky and argued that judges should not be influenced by political pressure.[47]

### Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office[edit]

Several defense attorneys from the Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office, including head Molly O'Neal, have spoken in support of Persky. "The sentence was totally fair, not out of line, given his [Turner's] lack of a criminal record," O'Neal said. She denounced threats made against Persky and said it was wrong to recall a judge based on one ruling.[56] A group led by public defender Sajid A. Khan started a petition in support of Persky on Change.org.[57]

### Group of Stanford law graduates[edit]

Fifty-three of the 180 students in Stanford Law School's graduating class sent an open letter to Dauber expressing their disagreement with her effort to recall Persky. Below is an excerpt from the letter:

“  | We have deep reservations about the idea of a judge — any judge — being fired over sentencing decisions that the public perceives as too lenient.

As we’ve learned during our time at the law school, judicial independence is a cornerstone of due process and an essential prerequisite of a fair criminal justice system… After decades of mass incarceration driven by mandatory minimums and other punitive sentencing regimes, we believe that judicial leniency is already too scarce, even though we strongly disagree with how it was applied to Turner. And in a world where judges believe they are one unpopular sentencing decision away from an abrupt pink slip, it will only grow scarcer.[58][28]

| ”

|
|

### Group of retired judges[edit]

Eighteen retired Santa Clara Superior Court judges signed a letter opposing the recall effort. The letter did not indicate whether the former judges considered the sentence appropriate, but it said removing Persky from his position based on this ruling would threaten judicial independence. Below is an excerpt from the letter:

“  | We acknowledge and respect the deeply held views of those who disagree with Judge Persky’s sentencing decision in the Turner case. At the same time, the full record in the case shows that Judge Persky made his decision after considering all the evidence presented at trial, the statements of the victim and the defendant, and a detailed report from an experienced probation officer.[59][28] | ”

|
|

### Group of law professors[edit]

Forty-six law professors from California universities wrote a letter opposing the recall. They said that Persky had followed the advice of the probation report and that an independent review of his sentences did not reveal a pattern of bias. Below is an excerpt from the letter:

“  | Rather than take on the difficult democratic work of seeking to change the law that confers sentencing discretion upon judges, or filing a complaint with the independent state agency charged with investigating and punishing judicial misconduct, the recall movement seeks to make Judge Persky and all other California judges fear the wrath of voters if they exercise their lawful discretion in favor of lenience.

This poses a serious threat to the rule of law. Naked political pressure of this kind risks undermining the very foundation of dispassionate, independent judgment upon which all criminal convictions and sentences depend for their legitimacy.[60][28]

| ”

|
|

### San Francisco Chronicle[edit]

The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle opposed the recall in an editorial opinion published on February 9, 2018.[61]

“  |

One of the most sacred principles of a system guided by rule of law is that the judiciary must be insulated from the dictates of authoritarian leaders or even the passions of the populace, no matter how intense or justified. Judges must retain the independence to follow the law without fear of losing their jobs...

Again, we would not propose to defend a six-month sentence for a young man convicted of sexual assault on an intoxicated and unconscious woman behind a dumpster on campus. We, too, were moved by the account of the 23-year-old victim, known in court records as “Emily Doe,” who told Turner at sentencing: “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.”

The furor over the verdict led California legislators to move quickly to toughen the sentencing laws on sex crimes, including an expansion of the definition of rape to include all forms of non-consensual assault, not just “an act of sexual intercourse.” Gov. Jerry Brown signed those bills in September 2016.

This is the way the system should work. Don’t blame judges for following their discretion within the law. This recall effort is ill-advised and dangerous. Neither justice for defendants nor the concept of judicial independence is served if judges are guided by their anticipation of public reaction instead of the letter of the law.[28]

| ”

|
|

### Palo Alto Daily Post[edit]

After initially calling for Persky's removal from the office on June 6, 2016, over the Turner decision, the Palo Alto Daily Post came out against the recall on May 10, 2018.[62][63]

Click [show] to see the editorial opinion|

|

|  | “  |

There’s more at stake in the recall election of Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky than the six-month jail sentence he gave to Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexual assault.

The sentence was tremendously unpopular and disappointing.

The victim’s moving statement focused national attention on the Turner sentence. It was posted online by BuzzFeed and it fueled a backlash that coincided with the burgeoning Me Too movement.

The Post was the first newspaper to call for Persky’s removal from office. We said on June 6, 2016, that the six-month sentence diminished the seriousness of the offense, and we still believe that is true.

A lynch-mob movement

But we never anticipated that the campaign to remove Persky would result in a lynch-mob movement that threatens the independence of the judiciary.

In deciding whether to recall Persky, a voter should ask two questions:

1. Was the sentence within the law?
2. If it was, then what should be done about it?

When it came time to sentence Turner, Judge Persky received two recommendations. The prosecutor asked for six years in prison. But a female probation officer recommended six months, noting that Turner was a first-time offender and that he showed remorse.

Persky accepted the probation officer’s recommendation, as judges often do.

Persky also required Turner to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

This newspaper, expressing outrage over the six-month sentence, urged readers to file complaints against the judge with the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the agency that investigates judges for ethical violations. The commission was flooded with thousands of complaints.

On Dec. 19, 2016, the commission, after reviewing the case, said Persky’s decision was within the “parameters set by law and was therefore within the judge’s discretion.”

It found no evidence of bias in the judge’s conduct.

That brings us to the second question — since the sentence was legal, what should be done about it?

The most obvious answer is to change the law, and that’s exactly what happened.

In September 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed two bills that will require longer sentences in state prison for defendants convicted of assaulting unconscious victims, ending the possibility of brief jail sentences like the one Turner received. The bills also expanded the definition of rape to include all forms of non-consensual assault, not just “an act of sexual intercourse.”

For those who wanted reform, it’s happened. There won’t be another sentence like the one Brock Turner got.

We’ve now changed our view about whether Persky ought to be recalled, and here’s why.

Judicial independence

We don’t want judges to be influenced by public opinion. We want judges to follow the law. We don’t want them to worry before they make a decision about what people will say about them on Twitter or Facebook.

If Persky is recalled, other judges will start worrying that they’ll be next. They’ll conform their decisions to what they think the public wants, not what the law says. The crowd with the torches and pitchforks will win.

While the Turner sentence was a grievous mistake, it would be an even greater mistake to give up the concept of an independent judiciary. For that reason, we ask you to vote “no” on the recall. [28]

| ”

|
|

## Debates[edit]

Several debates were held for supporters and opponents of the recall to argue their respective points of view. Summaries of debates are included in this section. It is not comprehensive.

### April 25 debate[edit]

Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, a recall supporter, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school and a recall opponent, debated the recall at Stanford's law school.[44][64]

Arguments made by Lemley

* Persky has made at least five decisions in favor of male athletes alleged to have committed acts of violence against women. “Persky has repeatedly favored privileged men, especially college athletes, over women of color,” he said. He said the bias could be due to Persky's background as a lacrosse player at Stanford.
* Only 64 Persky cases involved violence against women, making the five instances of bias more notable than if viewing all 2,000 Persky cases.
* Recalls are very rare and they are not likely to increase if the one against Persky is successful.
* Judges' behavior will not be affected by the recall because they will know that it was prompted by Persky's pattern of decision-making rather than just one decision.

Arguments made by Chemerinsky

* In the cases where Persky was alleged to show bias toward athletes accused of crimes against women, he always followed the probation department's recommendation.
* Citing five out of 2,000 Persky cases is not enough to prove systemic bias.
* Changing the laws governing sentencing is preferable to recalling judges.
* Judges should not be punished for following the recommendation of the district attorney and the probation department. If a district attorney thinks the sentence was lenient, they can appeal it.
* Recalling Persky will send a message to judges that they need to impose harsher sentences. This will primarily lead to harsher sentences for black and Latino men.

### April 20 debate[edit]

Recall leader and Stanford Law professor Michele Dauber debated Santa Clara University law professor Ellen Kreitzberg, a recall opponent, at Hayes Street Grill in San Francisco.[65]

Arguments made by Kreitzberg

* Judges swear an oath to disregard public opinion when making decisions. This recall is already causing judges to give out harsher sentences than they would have previously.
* Judges who engage in unethical conduct should be dealt with by the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance (which cleared Persky), not the recall process.

Responses by Dauber

* Those who think judges will be intimidated by the recall have “a dim view of judicial intelligence and judicial integrity.”
* The Commission on Judicial Performance's review of the Persky case was biased and only addressed one side of the issue.

### April 18 debate[edit]

Recall leader and Stanford Law professor Michele Dauber was set to debate Palo Alto Judge LaDoris Cordell, a recall opponent, at an event hosted by the South Peninsula Area Republican Coalition. Dauber did not attend and sent Stanford professor G. Marcus Cole in her place.[66]

Arguments made by Cordell

* Attempts to show that Persky had a history of giving lenient sentences was limited. He said, “In their desperate attempt to paint a picture of Judge Persky as a biased judge and overall bad person, and after combing through thousands of records, the recall campaign came up with five cases. Think about it, five cases out of 2,000. That’s 0.25%, or one-quarter of 1%, of Judge Persky’s cases. Common sense tells you that’s not a pattern.”
* The Turner case was the first time Persky was accused of bias. He is married to a woman of color and has two biracial children. He previously received awards for his pro bono work and addressed hate crimes, sex crimes, and domestic violence as a prosecutor.
* If proponents want to remove Persky, they could run against him in his next election. A recall is inappropriate and intended to address misconduct, not controversial decisions.

Arguments made by Cole

* Superior court judges are more powerful than lifetime appointed judges due to their six-year terms and, because of this, judicial independence and judicial accountability should be balanced. He said, “This is why California law and the California Constitution, as well as 26 other states, balance judicial independence with judicial accountability. The sweeping powers of state court judges requires that they be exercised with the public trust. That trust was breached by Judge Persky in the Brock Turner case.”
* During the 18 months Persky heard cases at the Palo Alto courthouse, he gave lenient sentences to persons convicted of child pornography and domestic violence charges. He also allowed jury members in a rape case to see revealing pictures of the victim, suggesting that the victim invited the assault.
* Public outrage against Persky is high enough to justify the recall. His presence in the office might discourage sexual assault victims from coming forward.

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing recall in California

According to Section 14 of Article II of the California Constitution, petitioners must submit signatures equal to 20 percent of the votes cast for a judge in the last election to qualify a judicial recall for the ballot. For county superior court judges who did not appear on the ballot in the last election, such as Persky, the requirement is signatures equal to 20 percent of the votes cast for the countywide office that received the least number of votes in the last election. Recall supporters had to collect 58,634 valid signatures in a 160-day period to get the Persky recall on the ballot.

On June 26, 2017, recall proponents filed a notice of intent to recall Persky.[67] The recall was authorized for signature gathering by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters on August 9, 2017.[68]

Two days later, retired Superior Court Judge Marjorie Laird Carter approved Persky's request for a temporary restraining order against the recall. Persky argued that the recall should have gone through the state secretary of state rather than the county office because he was a state official. Carter scheduled a hearing for August 23, 2017, and recall proponents were barred from collecting signatures in the meantime. If the judge had ruled in favor of Persky's argument, the recall application would have had to be refiled with the secretary of state.[69]

The recall campaign moved to disqualify Carter from the case. "Unfortunately, the fact that Judge Carter would issue a prior restraint of protected First Amendment speech without any finding of a compelling government interest, and indeed without even letting us discuss the question, demonstrates that she does not have a sufficient appreciation for or does not fully understand the important First Amendment issues at stake in this case," Dauber said in requesting Carter's disqualification.[70]

Retired Judge Kay Tsenin took over the case, and the hearing was postponed until August 28, 2017. Tsenin ruled in favor of the recall campaign, lifting the restraining order.[71] Persky appealed, but the California Sixth District Court of Appeal rejected his request to end the recall process.[72]

On January 11, 2018, the recall campaign submitted signatures to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. They reported collecting 95,000 signatures.[73] The county registrar of voters announced on January 23, 2018, that it had verified a sufficient number of signatures to place the recall on the June 5 ballot.[35] On February 6, 2018, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors officially approved the recall election for the ballot.[12]

## State overview[edit]

### Partisan control[edit]

This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in California heading into the 2018 elections.

#### Congressional delegation[edit]

* Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in California.
* Democrats held 39 of 53 U.S. House seats in California.

#### State executives[edit]

* As of May 2018, Democrats held seven of 10 state executive positions and the remaining three positions were officially nonpartisan.
* The governor of California was Democrat Jerry Brown.

#### State legislature[edit]

* Democrats controlled both chambers of the California State Legislature. They had a 55-25 majority in the state Assembly and a 27-13 majority in the state Senate.

#### Trifecta status[edit]

* California was a state government trifecta, meaning that Democrats held the governorship and majorities in the state house and state senate.

### 2018 elections[edit]

See also: California elections, 2018

California held elections for the following positions in 2018:

* 1 Senate seat
* 53 U.S. House seats
* Governor
* Seven other state executive positions
* 20 of 40 state Senate seats
* 80 state Assembly seats
* Two state Supreme Court justices
* 35 state Court of Appeals judges
* Local trial court judges
* School board members

### Demographics[edit]

Demographic data for California

| California| U.S.
Total population:| 38,993,940| 316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):| 155,779| 3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:| 61.8%| 73.6%
Black/African American:| 5.9%| 12.6%
Asian:| 13.7%| 5.1%
Native American:| 0.7%| 0.8%
Pacific Islander:| 0.4%| 0.2%
Two or more:| 4.5%| 3%
Hispanic/Latino:| 38.4%| 17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:| 81.8%| 86.7%
College graduation rate:| 31.4%| 29.8%
Income
Median household income:| $61,818| $53,889
Persons below poverty level:| 18.2%| 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California.

* * *

**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

As of July 2016, California had a population of approximately 39,000,000 people, with its three largest cities being Los Angeles (pop. est. 4.0 million), San Diego (pop. est. 1.4 million), and San Jose (pop. est. 1 million).[74][75]

## State election history[edit]

This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in California from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the California Secretary of State.

### Historical elections[edit]

#### Presidential elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of the presidential election in California every year from 2000 to 2016.

Election results (President of the United States), California 2000-2016

Year  | First-place candidate  | First-place candidate votes (%)  | Second-place candidate  | Second-place candidate votes (%)  | Margin of victory (%)
2016 |  Hillary Clinton | 61.7% |  Donald Trump | 31.6% | 30.1%
2012 |  Barack Obama | 60.2% |  Mitt Romney | 37.1% | 23.1%
2008 |  Barack Obama | 61.1% |  John McCain | 37% | 24.1%
2004 |  John Kerry | 54.4% |  George W. Bush | 44.4% | 10%
2000 |  Al Gore | 53.5% |  George W. Bush | 41.7% | 11.8%

#### U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in California from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.

Election results (U.S. Senator), California 2000-2016

Year  | First-place candidate  | First-place candidate votes (%)  | Second-place candidate  | Second-place candidate votes (%)  | Margin of victory (%)
2016 |  Kamala Harris | 61.6% |  Loretta Sanchez | 38.4% | 23.2%
2012 |  Dianne Feinstein | 62.5% |  Elizabeth Emken | 37.5% | 25%
2010 |  Barbara Boxer | 52.2% |  Carly Fiorina | 42.2% | 10%
2006 |  Dianne Feinstein | 59.5% |  Richard Mountjoy | 35.1% | 24.4%
2004 |  Barbara Boxer | 57.8% |  Bill Jones | 37.8% | 20%
2000 |  Dianne Feinstein | 55.9% |  Tom Campbell | 36.6% | 19.3%

#### Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in California.

Election results (Governor), California 2000-2016

Year  | First-place candidate  | First-place candidate votes (%)  | Second-place candidate  | Second-place candidate votes (%)  | Margin of victory (%)
2014 |  Jerry Brown | 60% |  Neel Kashkari | 40% | 20%
2010 |  Jerry Brown | 53.8% |  Meg Whitman | 40.9% | 12.9%
2006 |  Arnold Schwarzenegger | 55.9% |  Phil Angelides | 39.0% | 16.9%
2002 |  Gray Davis | 47.3% |  Bill Simon | 42.4% | 4.9%

#### Congressional delegation, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent California in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.

Congressional delegation, California 2000-2016

Year  | Democrats  | Democrats (%)  | Republicans  | Republicans (%)  | Balance of power
2016 |  39 | 73.5% |  14 | 26.4% | D+25
2014 |  39 | 73.5% |  14 | 26.4% | D+25
2012 |  38 | 71.7% |  15 | 28.3% | D+23
2010 |  34 | 64.1% |  19 | 35.8% | D+15
2008 |  34 | 64.1% |  19 | 35.8% | D+15
2006 |  34 | 64.1% |  19 | 35.8% | D+15
2004 |  33 | 62.3% |  20 | 37.7% | D+13
2002 |  33 | 62.3% |  20 | 37.7% | D+13
2000 |  32 | 61.5% |  20 | 38.5% | D+12

#### Trifectas, 1992-2017[edit]

A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

California Party Control: 1992-2026
Twenty-one years with Democratic trifectas • No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.

Year  | 92  | 93  | 94  | 95  | 96  | 97  | 98  | 99  | 00  | 01  | 02  | 03  | 04  | 05  | 06  | 07  | 08  | 09  | 10  | 11  | 12  | 13  | 14  | 15  | 16  | 17  | 18  | 19  | 20  | 21  | 22  | 23  | 24  | 25  | 26

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Governor | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D
Senate | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D
Assembly | D | D | D | S | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Recall campaigns in California
* Special district recalls
* Political recall efforts, 2017
* Political recall efforts, 2018

## External links[edit]

* Search Google News for this topic
* The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
* Recall Judge Aaron Persky website
* Retain Judge Persky—No Recall website
* Change.org, "Remove Judge Aaron Persky from the Bench For Decision in Brock Turner rape case"
* Change.org, "A Letter in Support of Judge Aaron Persky and Judicial Discretion"

## Additional reading[edit]

* Victim impact statement
* Letter to the judge by the father of Brock Turner

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ ABC News, "Judge in Brock Turner assault case to face vote for removal in June," January 24, 2018
2. ↑ California Constitution, "Final steps in the recall: Ballots," accessed February 12, 2018
3. ↑ California Constitution, "Final steps in the recall: Recall elections," accessed February 12, 2018
4. ↑ The Mercury News, "Brock Turner case: Judge launches fight against recall," August 29, 2016
5. ↑ The Recall Elections Blog, "California: Petitioners hand in 95,000 signatures against Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky; Likely to be first recall of a judge since 1982," January 11, 2018
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 California Secretary of State, "Election dates and resources," accessed January 31, 2018
7. ↑ Ballotpedia staff, "Phone call with the California Secretary of State's Office," January 31, 2018
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Mercury News, "California’s top court deals fatal blow to Brock Turner judge’s bid to stop recall," May 1, 2018
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 The Stanford Daily, "Following appeal denial, Persky recall measure remains on June ballot," March 26, 2018
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Mountain View Voice, "Appellate court justices to decide if Persky recall stays on June 5 ballot," March 20, 2018
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 The Mercury News, "Persky recall opponent joins race to replace embattled judge," February 8, 2018
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 CBS News, "Santa Clara County supes vote to add Persky recall to June ballot," February 6, 2018
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Mountain View Voice, "Persky opponent launches fundraising campaign," October 21, 2017
14. ↑ Santa Clara County Elections, "Contest/candidate proof list," accessed March 5, 2018
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Newsweek, "REMEMBER THE JUDGE IN THE BROCK TURNER CASE? HE COULD BE REMOVED WITH THE HELP OF THESE WOMEN," October 17, 2017
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Palo Alto Weekly, "Candidates for Persky's seat steer clear of Turner case," May 11, 2018
17. ↑ Palo Alto Daily Post, "Two lawyers vie to replace Judge Persky," April 22, 2018
18. ↑ Mercury News, "Storey is Best Replacement if Persky is Recalled," May 22, 2018
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Palo Alto Online, "San Jose lawyer enters recall race," February 16, 2018
20. ↑ The Guardian, "Ex-Stanford swimmer gets six months in jail and probation for sexual assault," June 2, 2016
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 The Mercury News, "Stanford sex assault: Will Brock Turner get years in prison for attack on unconscious woman?" June 1, 2016
22. ↑ The Washington Post, "Stanford sex offender Brock Turner is appealing his conviction," December 2, 2017
23. ↑ BuzzFeed News, "Here is the powerful letter the Stanford victim read aloud to her attacker," June 3, 2016
24. ↑ Independent, "Stanford rape case: Read the impact statement of Brock Turner's victim," September 2, 2016
25. ↑ The Mercury News, "Brock Turner case: Campaign turns in nearly 95,000 signatures to put judge's recall on June ballot," January 11, 2018
26. ↑ Santa Clara County Elections, "2016 Candidate List," accessed June 14, 2016
27. ↑ Palo Alto Weekly, "Analysis of Judge Persky's 'pattern' cases," May 11, 2018
28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 28.7 28.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
29. ↑ The Mercury News, "Timeline of significant dates in the life of Brock Turner," June 11, 2016
30. ↑ The Guardian, "Judge in Stanford sexual assault case faces recall effort over light sentence," June 6, 2016
31. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California political heavyweights join effort to oust Stanford rape case judge," June 10, 2016
32. ↑ Palo Alto Online, "Following Turner's release, recall-campaign organizers rally," September 2, 2016
33. ↑ New York Times, "Judge in Stanford sexual assault case is cleared of misconduct," December 19, 2016
34. ↑ CBS News, "Committee to Recall Judge Persky submits signatures for ballot," January 11, 2018
35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, "Judge Aaron Persky recall petition qualifies for ballot," January 23, 2018
36. ↑ The Spokesman-Review, "Stanford professor in recall effort receives rape threat," February 14, 2018
37. ↑ The Mercury News, "White powder mailer targeted Persky recall leader, Trump Jr., authorities say," March 1, 2018
38. ↑ The Mercury News, "Brock Turner sexual assault case: Judge Persky’s possible recall postponed," March 15, 2017
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 CBS SF Bay Area, "Poll Shows Effort To Recall Judge Persky Could Be Waning," May 22, 2018
40. ↑ Mercury News, "Judge Persky: Effort to recall judge in Stanford sexual assault leads by double digits, poll finds," May 17, 2018
41. ↑ Mountain View Voice, "Survey of voters reveals support for recall of Brock Turner judge," June 28, 2016
42. ↑ Palo Alto Daily Post, "Recall Persky campaign raises more than $1 million," May 27, 2018
43. ↑ '"Recall Judge Aaron Persky, "Endorsers and Supporters," accessed March 22, 2018
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Stanford Daily, "Law School hosts debate on Persky Recall," April 25, 2018
45. ↑ TIME, "Judge who gave Stanford sex offender a lenient sentence faces recall campaign," June 6, 2016
46. ↑ Mercury News, "Letter: Judge recalls do not threaten judicial independence," May 2, 2018
47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Mercury News, "Judge Aaron Persky: Dolores Huerta, women’s right to choose invoked in recall battle," May 23, 2018
48. ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "The Latest: Activists file petitions in judge recall effort," June 10, 2016
49. ↑ WAFB, "Group calls for recall of Stanford rape case judge," June 22, 2016
50. ↑ Palo Alto Weekly, "Editorial: Recall Judge Persky," May 11, 2018
51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 The Mercury News, "Judge Persky speaks out in anti-recall statement filed with registrar," June 30, 2017
52. ↑ ABC 7 News, "Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky breaks silence amid recall effort," May 8, 2018
53. ↑ Palo Alto Daily Post, "Judge facing recall speaks out for judicial independence," May 3, 2018
54. ↑ Mercury News, "Judge Aaron Persky breaks silence, speaks out against recall effort as campaign hits stretch run," April 19, 2018
55. ↑ Vogue, "Rape Culture Is on the Ballot ​i​n California," May 23, 2018
56. ↑ The Mercury News, "Brock Turner case: Q&A on sexual assault sentence, possible appeal and more," June 8, 2016
57. ↑ NBC Bay Area, "Bay area legal professionals oppose efforts to recall Judge Aaron Persky," June 21, 2016
58. ↑ The College Fix, "Stanford law grads rebuke professor leading recall against Brock Turner judge," June 23, 2016
59. ↑ KRON 4, "Letter by retired judges addresses efforts to remove judge Aaron Persky for sentence on ex-Stanford swimmer Brock Turner," July 6, 2016
60. ↑ East Bay Times, "Brock Turner: Leading law school professors issue letter opposing judge's recall," July 28, 2016
61. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Editorial: The case against the recall of Judge Persky," February 9, 2018
62. ↑ Palo Alto Daily Post, "Judge Aaron Persky should be fired," June 6, 2016
63. ↑ Palo Alto Daily Post, "Editorial: Vote ‘no’ on recall of Judge Persky," May 10, 2018
64. ↑ Palo Alto Daily Post, "Other judges are watching the Persky recall campaign, law school dean says," April 26, 2018
65. ↑ SFGate, "Foes, backers of Judge Persky recall effort face off in debate," April 20, 2018
66. ↑ Palo Alto Daily Post, "Dauber pulls out of recall debate, sends law school colleague to go up against Cordell," April 19, 2018
67. ↑ The Mercury News, "Brock Turner sex assault case: Recall backers take 1st step toward ousting judge," June 26, 2017
68. ↑ The Recorder, "Court ices Persky recall effort," August 11, 2017
69. ↑ The Mercury News, "Brock Turner case: Judge orders Persky recall campaign to stop collecting signatures for at least 12 days," August 11, 2017
70. ↑ The Mercury News, "Persky recall campaign dumps judge who blocked petition drive," August 21, 2017
71. ↑ The Mercury News, "Retired judge agrees to handle legal battle over Persky recall," August 22, 2017
72. ↑ The Mercury News, "Appeals court denies Judge Persky’s request to stop recall petition drive," December 2, 2017
73. ↑ The Mercury News, "Brock Turner case: Campaign turns in nearly 95,000 signatures to put judge’s recall on June ballot," January 11, 2018
74. ↑ California Demographics, "California Cities by Population," accessed April 2, 2018
75. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Quickfacts California," accessed April 2, 2018

Political recall elections

Recalls
by year

Upcoming recalls • 2026 • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • Historical recalls • Recall statistics and analysis

Recalls
by office

Governors • State legislators • County officials • County commission • Sheriffs • Mayors • City officials • City council • School board • Special district

Recalls
by state

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • District of Columbia • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Recall
laws

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Kansas • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Rhode Island • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming • States that require grounds for recalls • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy