What to Expect When You're Expecting a Recall: Santa Clara Judicial Division

The recall of Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky is an historic one – the first in the country since 1982 and the first in California since Herbert Hoover was in office.  Persky is targeted over his sentencing of Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner to a six month jail term for sexual assault.

Petitioners, led by Stanford University Professor Michele Dauber, handed in close to 95,000 signatures. The Registrar used a random sampling method and showed that the recall would make the ballot, so unlike many other recalls, there is no fully verified number of signatures.

The Persky recall is the first in the country against a judge since Wisconsin Judge William Reinecke in 1982 (he survived the vote). The last successful one was in 1977 (also in Wisconsin against Archie Simonson). Both of those were also directly related to sexual assault issues. Those two judges made disparaging comments about victims from the bench, leading to a firestorm of criticism.

 In 2016, there was a recall against a Wheeler County Judge, though that seemed to really be an executive position more than a judicial one. Nevada had an attempted recall of judge in 2015 that was thrown out and declared unconstitutional by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2017.

The last recalls of a Judge in California took place in 1932 against Los Angeles Superior Court Judges John L. Fleming, Dailey S. Stafford and Walter Guerin. All three were removed. There were only a few before then, notably one in 1913 that was over similar leniency in sex crimes. (Leniency in sex crimes is a common factor in many threatened recalls of judges -- here's one in Orange County and another in Montana).

Note that there are many retention elections that are incorrectly described as recalls -- most notably California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin in 1986 and three Supreme Court members in Iowa.
History of the recall against Judges

Using the recall against a judge has always been controversial. California's recall law almost floundered over this issue back in 1911. Though the California courts were seen as in the tight grip of the "octopus" grip of the Southern Pacific (the powerful institution that was seen as the most important political and economic player in the state), many legislators were opposed to putting judges under the recall law. News accounts of the day suggested that the legislator were seriously considering exempting judges for the recall law, but  a late-breaking state Supreme Court scandal, where the court ordered a rehearing of the sentences of the political leaders in a scandal in San Francisco (with one of the judge's signing the decision without considering the filed briefs) turned the tide.

On the national level, President William Howard Taft vetoed the Arizona constitution over a recall of judges’ provision and the recall of judges and something called the recall of judicial decisions (an idea that seems to have died by 1930) was one of the key flash points in the Taft- Theodore Roosevelt split in 1912.

As it is, six states appear to carve out an exemption for judges in their recall law.

Also, just to define our terms: I call this subject the recall of a judge, rather than judicial recall. In the history and the literature the term Judicial Recall refers to something totally different (what I call the malfeasance standard or for cause recalls). A judicial recall occurs in states and jurisdictions where a judge is required to rule on whether a recall meets a specific standard to get on the ballot. Essentially, the official has to have violated the law or shown demonstrable incompetence for the recall to be placed on the ballot. It has nothing to do with removing judges. I keep this divide up so as not to confuse people who may be conversant or studying the literature. T

In addition to getting all those signatures, petitioners overcame California’s grace period. California law does not allow a recall in the last six months of a term unless the official is appointed or in the first three months of a new term. Persky won reelection in November 2016 and petitioners had to wait out a delay before they were allowed to begin gathering signatures.

How the Recall Works:

California’s recall is what I call a two-step/same-day recall vote -- voters cast one ballot which has two parts: step one is the question (not using the literal language) of "Should this official be recalled?" and step two is "Who should be named as a replacement?" The only state that mimics this exact process is Colorado.

Under California law, Persky cannot run in the replacement race. There are two candidates who are running as replacements: Santa Clara Assistant District Attorney Cindy Seeley Hendrickson (who has the endorsement of Dauber) and attorney Angela Storey, who opposed the recall.

California: Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge facing recall threats

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky is facing a threatened recall over his sentencing of a Stanford University swimmer/student Brock Turner to a six month jail for rape. Already, a Stanford law professor is suggesting she will lead one, and an online petition that has garnered over a million signatures (none count toward a recall). The petitioners need an unclear number of signatures which may be almost 59000, but could be much more. They also likely will not be able to start until April.

The petitioners will face a few serious problems with their recall effort. The first obvious one is that 80920 or 59000 signatures are both a hell of a lot. Of the tens of thousands of recalls that have occurred in the US, only a handful have needed more signatures – the most prominent among those were three Governors, a Lieutenant Governor and two Mayors of Los Angeles.

The other problems are more specific – it involves the grace period. California law does not allow a recall in the last six months of a term unless the official is appointed or in the first three months of a new term. Persky is up for reelection in November. While Persky was first appointed to the office, he was elected six years ago. Even if they could collect the signatures today, the recall would not be allowed.

Then if he is reelected – and that’s a good bet, as he is running unopposed -- petitioners would have to wait three months from the start of his term before starting the collection process. Now, we've seen questions on when the grace period ends crop up in an attempt against the San Francisco Mayor. Almost certainly, the signature gathering won't start till April. By then, anger may have cooled and people’s attention may wander. This has happened many times in the past.

This grace period and the fact that he is running unopposed is part of the reason we aren't completely sure about the signature totals. California law holds that the signatures required must equal be 20% of the total vote cast for the countywide office which has the least number of votes in the most recent general election.

The Registrar stated it was 80920 then changed that to almost 59000 based on a different calculation. If there is no countywide office up for election in November, then it will be the almost 59,000 signatures. However, it is not clear if any judge will be facing an election or if a court would rule that it is a position that is positions that are larger than countywide (such as Senator or President), and just includes the votes in the county. It is not a likely interpretation, but it certainly may lead to a lawsuit. If so, the election in 2016 will have a higher voter turnout (all presidential elections do).

Let's now get to some history here:

As we've discussed before, recall of judges almost never happen. There's been plenty of threats including one against an Orange County Superior Court Judge last year and one in Nevada where we are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on whether the judge would face a recall (here's another in Montana). The last recalls of judges we've seen in the country took place in Wisconsin back in 1977 and 1982. Much as with Persky, those recalls were about sexual assaults, though the recalls were due to incredibly inappropriate comments from the bench. In 1977, Judge Archie Simonson was tossed out by voters after both handing down extremely lenient sentencing for a rapist and making negative comments about women and rape victims from the bench. This was followed in 1982 when Judge William Reinecke survived a vote despite disparaging comments about a five-year old sexual assault victim. Note that there are many retention elections that are incorrectly described as recalls -- most notably California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin and three Supreme Court members in Iowa.

The last recalls of a Judge in California were three that took place in 1932 against Los Angeles Superior Court Judges John L. Fleming, Dailey S. Stafford and Walter Guerin. All three were removed.

Using the recall against a judge has always been controversial. California's recall law almost floundered over this issue back in 1911 – a late-breaking state Supreme Court scandal proved decisive. On the national level, President William Howard Taft vetoed the Arizona constitution over a recall of judges’ provision and the recall of judges was one of the key flash points in the Taft- Theodore Roosevelt split in 1912.

We'll see if social media can keep the fires burning long enough to get this recall on the ballot.

California: Santa Clara County Judge gets backing from D.A.

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has endorsed Judge Aaron Persky in his attempt to defeat a recall effort for the perceived lenient sentencing of a Stanford athlete in a sexual assault trial. Rosen had criticized Persky's sentencing in the trial.

Persky had already received endorsements from two other district attorneys. Recall advocates have raised moe than $400,000; Persky has raised $64,618.

What to Expect When You're Expecting a Recall: California State Senate edition

June 5 is set to be a big day, thanks to two very notable recalls taking place in California.

• State Senator Josh Newman (D) is facing a legislative recall, the first in the state in almost a decade and the first anywhere in the country since 2013.
• Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky is facing a recall vote. Persky is the first full-time judge anywhere in the country since 1982. If he is removed, he will be the first to be kicked out by recall since 1977. In California, no judge has faced a recall since the days of Herbert Hoover in 1932. 

Let’s look at Newman in this post and Persky in the next.

Newman will be the 39th state legislator to face a recall vote since 1913. He is the ninth California legislator on that list and the first since then-state Senator Jeff Denham in 2008 (in a similar situation).

The last state legislative recalls in the country took place in Colorado in 2013, where two Democratic state Senators, Senate President John Morse and Angela Giron, were removed over their support for gun control legislation. The Newman recall is ostensibly over his vote in favor of a gas tax, but there is a very clear political/legislative strategy focus to the recall, of a type that we’ve seen many times in the past. Newman’s district is one of the closest contested ones in the state, and Newman won office by less than 2500 votes.

If Newman is ousted and replaced by a Republican, the Republicans will then prevent the Democrats from retaining a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

 Political Recalls:

Whatever the issues surrounding the gas tax, the Newman recall appears to have been launched over an attempt to deprive the Democrats of a two-third majority in both houses.

In the past, there have been multiple attempts to use the recall to “flip the chamber” – including the historic California recall battles of 1995. In 2008, the Democratic leadership tried to recall Senator Denham in order to gain the 2/3rds majority – they failed, as Denham easily won the office and then went on to win a Congressional seat.

There were also attempts to recall three state Senators in Nevada this year (two Democrats, one-Independent). One failed to get enough signatures, the others failed following the handing in of signatures.

The Recall Explosion:

Recalls generally result in removal – from 2011-2017, close to 60% of recalls that get to the ballot result in the official losing the vote (plus many others result in resignation before a vote. State legislative recalls are much closer to 50-50, the success breakdown is 20-18 in favor of removals -- but Wisconsin really skews the numbers. In 2012-2013, 13 legislators faced recalls and only three were removed (I count this resignation in the survived a recall column, as the Republicans easily retained the seat).

The vast majority of legislative recalls have taken place in recent years -- only five took place before 1971, and 21 will have taken place since 2003 (plus two of the four gubernatorial -- if we count Arizona's Evan Meacham in 1988-- recalls to get to the ballot took place in that time).

What explains the explosion? Many cite increased partisanship. I am skeptical of that explanation, and have argued that technological innovations (and possibly a drop in voter turnout and registration) are really responsible for the lion's share of the growth.

Other States:
18 states have the recall for state level officials (plus Illinois has it just for governors and Virginia has something called a recall trial). Of those 18 states, 9 have held state-level office recalls. There is a very significant breakdown between those states. 11 of the states have a political recall (an official can be recalled for any reason); 7 have a judicial recall or malfeasance standard (the official must have violated one of a specified list of causes, such as being indicted).

Of the nine states that have held state level recalls, eight of them have been political recall states (California, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, North Dakota, Colorado). The only recall on the state level in a malfeasance standard state was in Washington in 1981 (the malfeasance was switching parties -- the official survived).

Give me Two Steps:
California’s recall is what I call a two-step/same-day recall vote -- voters cast one ballot which has two parts: step one is the question (not using the literal language) of "Should this official be recalled?" and step two is "Who should be named as a replacement?" The only state that has this exact process is Colorado. There are six candidates running the replacement race. Newman is not allowed to run to replace himself.

In Colorado in 2013, the hybrid process was received significant attention for two reasons. One is the question of whether the recall itself (the first vote) is actually an election or an issue campaign. There is a difference in how money may be spent by parties if it is an issue campaign. The second point, which two courts have ruled on was the question of whether you could be barred from voting in the replacement race if you don’t vote on the recall question. This same question came up in California in 2003. The Ninth Circuit ruled this provision unconstitutional (under the 1st and 14th Amendments). In a 5-2 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court apparently followed the same logic.

Party Line -- Is one party more likely to use recalls?
I constantly get asked about the party breakdowns of the recall. Most of the recalls are on the local level, where the position is elected on a nonpartisan basis. When there is a partisan position, the party label is frequently a misleading method to judge recall use, as many are not based on D v. R partisan motivations. Sometimes Republicans recall Republicans, and Democrats recall Democrats.

However, you would see both parties are not shy about using recalls (for example of the 14 state legislative recalls from 1981-2008, most were launched against Democrats, and ethics played very little role in those recalls). Democrats have launched the majority of the recalls in 2012-13 on the state level, which makes sense as the lost power in 2010.

Republicans or their backers have not been shy about using the recall for partisan gain (for example, Michigan, 1983, California, 1994, 1995 and 2003, Colorado in 2013). Same thing with Democrats (Wisconsin in 2011-12, 2008 California). So, which party is most likely to launch a recall? Simple -- the one that is not in office.

Blowouts v. Barnburners:
I wouldn't expect a blowout, but throughout history recalls have tended that way. Here's a look at some of the history of blowouts  and some close races.

Man is opposed to fair play, he wants it all, and he wants it his way: The inevitable post-recall reform act

We have heard, and will continue to hear complaints about the unfair use of the recall. But these complaints can generally be dismissed out of hand. Why? There have been a number of principled opponents of the recall. Alexander Hamilton and William Howard Taft lead the pack in US history with their great dislike for the recall. Among modern commentators, the only one that I can think of is George Will. But they are few and far between.

Similarly, after major recalls, the first action by the recall opponents is to propose a reform to the law. Wisconsin  has tried to do it. In 2011, Arizona tried to add a recall primary and other changes, and put a law on the books mandating strict construction of the law. Michigan actually changed its law following the successful Paul Scott recall in 2011 and has probably cut down on the amount of recalls in the state (as well as removed the replacement race for Governor). Others have done same after a recall loss.

In this case, the Democrats made these changes before the recall. They passed a law that allowed petition-signers to remove their name from petitions (a law that had an immediate impact in another race) as well as change the contribution limits so that Newman’s colleagues in the state Senate could help him in the race. Both of these provisions have been tied up in the courts, though it has allowed the recall of Newman to be delayed until primary day (which my eventually to be published statistics suggests may not matter). The law also requires the Board of Elections to estimate the costs of the recall.

These changes rarely involve going to the voters (I know of one example on the local level of such a change being passed by voters). Polls keep showing complaints about the recall, but they are not borne out by the results. In Wisconsin, one poll showed 70% of the voters opposed to the recall (60% wanted it used for corruption/malfeasance only; 10% thought it should never be used). Yet, despite that about 47% of the voters cast a ballot to toss Walker out.

We had a similar poll in Colorado, where almost 60% of voters opposed the use of the recall against Morse and Giron. The breakdown of the polls were very illuminating -- Republicans were much more in favor (62% for Morse; 47% for anyone for political reasons) of the recall than Democrats. The reality is that support or opposition to the recall depends heavily on whether it is an official from your favored party facing the voters.

Most of the people who complain about the recall are just really complaining about the recall being used against their side. In the past, Scott Walker signed petitions seeking policy-focused recalls. Bill Clinton was certainly not supporting the Gray Davis recall.

You want to know if somebody has a principled position on the recall? Look back at their positions on both the Gray Davis and Scott Walker ones. See if there is any consistency. What you will likely find is that the person just didn't want their candidate to lose, and they're hoping you either agree or just don't look into it.

Recall Survivors: Risin' up, straight to the top?
Surviving a recall can boost a career. Scott Walker survived and is now a major national figure, even with an early flame-out in his presidential attempt in 2016. Dianne Feinstein won the San Francisco Mayoral recall against her in 1983. By 1984 she was being *talked about for the VP and was the US Senator by 1992. Jeff Denham is now in Congress. Also, for what it's worth, filmmaker Michael Moore survived a recall before his career took off.

How a Resurrection Really Feels
Is a recall loss the end of a career? Not always. The most obvious example is North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier was the first Governor to be recalled back in 1921. He was elected to the first of the three US Senate terms 18 months later. Seattle Mayor Hiram Gill lost a recall in 1914 and was back in office the following term.

No future, no future for you?
Another big question that I'm constantly asked: Will we see a cycle of recall revenge? I remember similar questions after Gray Davis was recalled, and in fact this has been a constant warning cry of recall opponents since the recall was first adopted over a century ago. Recalls are clearly a part of political life, but as can be seen by the nearly five year hiatus from state legislature, they can wax and wane. The Recall is truly the Bermuda Triangle of politics.

California: Petitioners hand in 95,000 signatures against Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky; Likely to be first recall of a judge since 1982

Petitioners have apparently handed in over 95,000 signatures for the recall of Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky over his sentencing of a Stanford University swimmer to a six month jail term for rape (many outlets are claiming it is 100,000 signatures).

Petitioners need 58,634 valid signatures to get the recall on the ballot. Based on past experience in California, where we frequently see around a 15% failure rate for the raw signatures, they should easily meet this burden, and we probably can expect a recall this Spring (I imagine there would be a good chance it would be on the June 5 ballot). The recall petitioners have reportedly raised more than $700,000.

There will still be suits in the case, as Persky is claiming that the California's Secretary of State should be the one to examine the signatures.

This would be the first recall of judge to get on the ballot in the country since Wisconsin in 1982 against William Reinecke (he survived the vote). The last successful one was in 1977 (also in Wisconsin against Archie Simonson). Both of those were also directly related to sexual assault issues. Those two judges made disparaging comments about victims from the bench.

 In 2016, there was a recall against a Wheeler County Judge, though that seemed to really be an executive position more than a judicial one. Nevada had an attempted recall of judge in 2015 that was thrown out and declared unconstitutional by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2017.

The last recalls of a Judge in California took place in 1932 against Los Angeles Superior Court Judges John L. Fleming, Dailey S. Stafford and Walter Guerin. All three were removed. There were only a few before then, notably one in 1913 that was over similar leniency in sex crimes. (Leniency in sex crimes is a common factor in many threatened recalls of judges -- here's one in Orange County and another in Montana).

 Note that there are many retention elections that are incorrectly described as recalls -- most notably California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin in 1986 and three Supreme Court members in Iowa.

Using the recall against a judge has always been controversial. California's recall law almost floundered over this issue back in 1911 – a late-breaking state Supreme Court scandal proved decisive. On the national level, President William Howard Taft vetoed the Arizona constitution over a recall of judges’ provision and the recall of judges was one of the key flash points in the Taft- Theodore Roosevelt split in 1912.

 Addendum on the term judicial recall/recall of judges:

Also, just to define our terms: I call this subject the recall of a judge, rather than judicial recall. In the history and the literature the term Judicial Recall refers to something totally different (what I call the malfeasance standard or for cause recalls). A judicial recall occurs in states and jurisdictions where a judge is required to rule on whether a recall meets a specific standard to get on the ballot. Essentially, the official has to have violated the law or shown demonstrable incompetence for the recall to be placed on the ballot. It has nothing to do with removing judges. I keep this divide up so as not to confuse people who may be conversant or studying the literature.

California: Judge Persky recuses self from all criminal cases, moves back to Civil Court

Judge Aaron Persky, who is facing recall threats though signature-gathering can't start until next April, has requested to be moved back to just hearing civil cases. Persky has said that he is looking to remove distractions from the court.

California: Santa Clara Judge starting campaign to keep seat in possible recall

There are a number of rules around Judge Aaron Persky's recall, including that he must start every court session disclosing the names of attorneys hwo contributed to his campaign and taping it to a courtroom podium. He's named his campaign "Retain Judge Persky -- No Recall." He's raised $3600 from 12 attorneys -- as opposed to the $100,000 raised by his opponents.

The article also notes that there were three attempted recalls of judges this summer in California (Theodore Zayner, Peter Kirwan and Peter Socrates Manoukian), though none went anywhere.

California: Proponents move to disqualify Judge who temporarily blocked start of Santa Clara County Judge recall

Petitioners have asked for a disqualification of retired Orange County Judge Marjorie Laird Carter, who temporarily blocked the start of the signature gathering campaign against Judge Aaron Persky until after an August 23 hearing.

Persky argues that California's Secretary of State, not the county registrar, should have jurisdiction over the effort.

California: Former Santa Clara Judge fired from job coaching tennis

Former Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky, who was removed in the first recall/removal of a judge in the US since 1977, was fired from his job as a girls' high school tennis coach. Persky was targeted over his sentencing of Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner to a six month jail term for sexual assault.

California: Santa Clara Judge recall out-raised Judge by 5-1

The recall effort against Judge Aaron Persky over a Stanford student sexual assault sentence has seen a significant fundraising. Stanford professor Michele Dauber, who is leading the recall efforts, has raised $323,785, with donations from co-founder of Linkedin and the CEO of CrowdPac. Persky has raised $64,618.

California: My op-ed on the difficulties of the Recall of a Judge

The San Jose Mercury News just ran my op-ed on the recall efforts against Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky over his sentencing of a Stanford University swimmer to a six month jail term for rape. My op-ed (which I don't get to headline) is about how difficult and unusual recalls of judges are. It also touches on the fact that the recall of judges (and judicial decisions) is hotly contested issue in the early history of the recall. What the op-ed isn't about (despite the headline, is that a recall is almost impossible or futile). It's just very difficult due to one very critical factor. I've already discussed this story in-depth, but let's look at some of the issues again.

First, let's define our terms: I call this subject the recall of a judge, rather than judicial recall. In the history and the literature the term Judicial Recall refers to something totally different (what I call the malfeasance standard or for cause recalls). A judicial recall occurs in states and jurisdictions where a judge is required to rule on whether a recall meets a specific standard to get on the ballot. Essentially, the official has to have violated the law or shown demonstrable incompetence for the recall to be placed on the ballot. It has nothing to do with removing judges. I keep this divide up so as not to confuse people who may be conversant or studying the literature.

The recall will require a ton of signatures about 59000 valids, though I believe that may be in dispute. That is a big challenge, but with a motivated base, it is probably not impossible. The fact that someone is willing to back the effort and that Stanford law professors are leading the charge (and can presumably handle the legal work pro bono) is a couple of big pluses in favor of the recall effort.

The bigger problem is what I would call the "grace period." Due to incredible timing, Persky is up for reelection in November. This has a double impact. 1) He cannot face a recall in the last six months of his term, 2) Petitions cannot be started on his new term until he is in office and those petitions cannot be started until he is in office for 3 months. So the petitioners will have to wait until April to even start. We've seen this exact grace period event happen to Portland Mayor Sam Adams. That recall went nowhere. That doesn't mean it can't happen. It just

The other big point is that recalls of judges almost never happen. The last to get to a vote was in Wisconsin 1982, the last successful one was in 1977. In California, the last recall of a Superior Court Judge was in 1932. There were only a few before then, notably one in 1913 that was over similar leniency in sex crimes. (Leniency in sex crimes are a very popular recall issue -- the 1982 and 1977 were both over that issue as well. There have been discussion in Orange County and in Montana of recalls over that issue).

The other problem here is that recalling judges has always been controversial. The recall of judges and judicial decision was a key flash point in the Taft-Roosevelt split in 1912.

None of this means that a recall cannot work. But the grace period, tied in with the sheer amount of signatures and the usual hesitancy in recalling judges makes this a serious challenge for petitioners.

California: Senate President, State Senator, Assemblywoman, two Congressmen endorse Judge Persky recall effort

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, Senator Jim Beall, Assemblywoman Nora Campos, and Congressmen Eric Swalwell and Jerry McNerney have all endorsed the recall of Judge Persky.

California: Former Santa Clara Judge ordered to pay opponents attorneys' fees in recall fight

Judge Aaron Persky, who was kicked out in the June recall, was ordered to pay $161,825 in attorneys's fees over his lawsuit over who should handle the recall effort (Persky argued that the Secretary of State rather than the local county Registrar of Voters was responsible to handle the recall, and that his replacement should be appointed rather than elected. He lost both arguments). The fee payment is part of a statute calling for reimbursement if the case enforces 'an important right affecting the public interest.'"

California: Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky reportedly defeated in recall race

It looks like Judge Aaron Persky will be the first judge to be removed by recall in the US since 1977, and the first one in California since 1932. Reports have him losing with close to 60% against. Recall supporter Santa Clara Assistant DA Cindy Seeley Hendrickson appears to be the overwhelming choice to win the replacement race.

California: Poll shows double-digit support for Santa Clara Judge recall

The recall of Judge Aaron Persky is leading in the polls, with 46% saying they will vote in favor of removal and 33% opposing the recall. The poll was conducted by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area News Group. A previous robopoll had the recall leading 56% in favor.

California: Documentary out on Santa Clara Judge Recall

Looks like there is an MSNBC documentary (The Recall: Reframed) coming out on March 19 on the recall of Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky, with a focus on how whether it increased punitive punishment.

California: Appellate Court rejects Santa Clara Judges attempt to stop recall for June ballot

An appellate court rejected the attempt by Judge Aaron Persky to block the signature drive (the decision has no comment). Petitioners claim they already have 76,000 signatures and should get to 90,000. They need 58,634 by January 16.

California: Leader of recall effort against Santa Clara Superior Court Judge attacks Commission on Judicial Performance review

Stanford law professor Michele Dauber has written a seven-page analysis criticizing a recent state Commission on Judicial Performance review of the six-month sentence handed down against former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner for sexual assault. The Commission held that Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky did not engage in judicial misconduct in handing down the sentence. You can check out the analysis here.

California: Judge Persky recusal from child pornography sentencing case

Here

California: Petitioners claim they have $90k raised for Persky recall

Here -- this piece by NBC News' Phil Helsel is very comprehensive and mentions some of the famed recall of judge events over the year, such as the O.J. Simpson judge and the Prop 8 judge, none of which got on the ballot.