1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

November Elections in California - judges?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by CAnnoneer, Oct 18, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Member

    Jul 17, 2005
    Los Angeles County, CA
    I have been leafing through my elections booklet and have already settled my votes on everything but judges. The reason is simple - virtually no useful information is provided about them in the ballot materials. I checked out those who have them, and yet it is still impossible to figure out simple things like:

    1) How do they feel about RKBA ?
    2) What do they think about immigration issues?
    3) What is their stance on other issues - taxation, eminent domain, abortion, gay marriage?

    I checked out the NRA site as well. How come they do not have a blacklist posted someplace? Right now, the judge candidates are just a bunch of names.

    Obviously, #1 is the most relevant to us here. Does anyone know websites etc. where reputable sources have provided information?

    Thanks in advance.
  2. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    Judge positions in CA are considered non-political. You won't see party affiliations on the ballot or in the voter guides. If you go to your local party political machine, you should be able to find out the judge's political affiliation.

    About the only way judges attract media attention is when they make a ruling on a particularly controversial topic, or do something silly like set low bail for a child molester, or sentence the molester to probation because she thinks he is too short to survive in prison.

    Your only other option is go sit in their court and see how they conduct business.

  3. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Sep 8, 2005
    Judges have made sure that we don't have access to how they rule in their cases. They claim it's to keep the positions "non-political."

    Personally, I believe it does three things:
    1. Protects incumbents better than anything else ever tried, apart from stuffing ballot boxes.
    2. Prevents voters from expressing our opinions at the polls, as was intended by those who made judge positions into elected offices.
    3. Eliminates most competition (as you can see on the ballot, where most are Yes/No with no alternative candidate). It doesn't pay to run for an office if you're not allowed to show your views vs. those of your opponent.

    Since judges are responsible for this state of affairs, I have my own solution.

    I vote NO on all unopposed judges. I beg that everyone else does likewise, until we force a real election.
  4. riverdog

    riverdog Member

    Dec 24, 2002
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page