” Voices Against Recall” is the latest effort by anti-activist lawyers to disqualify California state Supreme Court Judge Christopher Freiman for disobeying state law requiring a mandatory minimum sentence for first-time, non-violent criminal offenders. The book’s author has written a series of books criticizing U.S. Attorneys General Eric Holder and Elliot Spitzer as well as former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He now argues that California’s new sentencing scheme for criminals is so strict it violates the guarantee of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. In addition, he contends that California’s new law requiring that all felony convictions be considered in sentencing, as well as mandatory minimum sentencing laws for juvenile offenders, are blatantly discriminatory and thus violate the rights of minorities. Already a well-known voices against clemency campaign, this latest effort by Voices Against Recall, or AV Clubs, comes at a time when the Obama administration and the California State Bar Association are publicly criticizing prosecutors and judges for their tough sentencing policies. California is one of only three states that currently require a person serving a sentence to have served part of the minimum sentence requirement. The other states’ laws are stricter. “voices against recall” organizers say they will bring signatures to the polls asking voters to force the state Supreme Court judge out of his retirement. They also announced plans to launch a major television advertising campaign to pressure members of the legislature into voting to recall the judge. There is no doubt that California’s two-track system of sentencing makes it difficult for judges to impose a just and proportionate sentence on criminals. For example, if an individual who has previously violated a federal law commits two more violations within a five-year period, he or she will receive a mandatory 15-year sentence for each offense. The idea, critics say, is that if an individual has been twice-freed or is subject to the death penalty for a crime, he or she should not be able to later be put back in jail for breaking the same law twice. A single instance of double jeopardy, they argue, justifies the legislature’s ability to increase the sentencing guidelines. Some legal experts agree with their position, but others strongly disagree. The Campaign for Fair Sentencing, which was formed by the California State Bar Association and funded by various law firm and business groups, is one of the voices against recall efforts. According to its website, the group believes that mandatory sentencing does not work and that its purpose is to tie judges inextricated and financially tied to a predetermined number of years of imprisonment. “A life sentence for a drug kingpin is absurd,” said David Gamache, senior counsel for the bar association. He added that mandatory sentencing “does not solve the problem of low-level criminal conduct.” Meanwhile, according to a letter from a group of California state attorneys, the recall campaign is being conducted “to chill the exercise of due process rights.” These lawyers argue that there is no problem in requiring people to pay for the prospect of receiving a fair trial, but that the recall initiative goes beyond this. “The initiative seeks to impose an unprecedented restriction on the right of a defendant to effective counsel,” they added. The Campaign for Fair Sentencing and other groups such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers are currently raising funds and preparing various lawsuits to stop the recall campaign. Retired California Judge Michael Ladoris Cordell was among the first of many judges to sign on to the petition. According to the Associated Press, he said that he could not sign on to the initiative because he feels it is “voter driven.” According to the AP, Ladoris Cordell “also criticized the state’s District Attorneys Association for not focusing more on the problems of the criminal justice system.” These sentiments appear to be shared by many voters. The recall effort has become one of the biggest barriers to a fair trial for many candidates and will probably remain a hot topic well into next year.

Read More

Recently in California, Voices Against Recall took on the task of tracking and participating in voter initiatives that would restore the executive branch’s ability to act in the best interests of the people. The state of California is being divided into six districts: Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. The lawyers for the recall effort are seeking to disqualify any judges who might try to continue the reign of an unfit President. In other words, they are accusing the Obama Administration of trying to “wipe away” the last vestiges of a Constitutional amendment process. If they succeed, they will have won, which means that no one will be able to get a judge dismissed for misconduct. The lawyers argue that there is ample evidence to show that the Obama Administration has not been honest with the American people about the extent of its federal stimulus efforts. What does this mean to anyone who is worried about judicial independence? Well, it means that there can be no fair trial when judges are selected by political party insiders at the expense of the people. Further, it means that a single sentencing decision can go in the wrong hands and a sentence can be far more severe than it should be. That is a very potent argument, and it has legal justifications that are all legitimate. It is important to remember, however, that a single sentencing decision can go awfully wrong, and that such a result can threaten the very existence of democracy. Some citizens are worried about the possibility of Judges being too influenced by their political handlers. If the recall election goes ahead, they believe, there will be a takeover by radical fringe elements. This would mean a judges who are willing to rubber stamp whatever the radicals want. Such a turn will have terrible consequences for California law, and the lives of its citizens. It is a frightening scenario, and it must be viewed through the proper legal spectacles. Some say that there is no legitimate concern about judges becoming too political. That may be true, but what if a judge is doing her best to ensure that a repeat of the same crime does not occur? For instance, if she allows a convicted thief to be free to attend college on the day of a Recall election, she will have made a political error, no matter how correct she might be in her assessment of the criminal act. A judge cannot be trusted to be an apologist for a crime she personally presided over. Further, such a judge would clearly be incapable of impartiality, as she will be working almost exclusively with the lawyers who will be winning the recall election. Is this an over-the-top fear? Absolutely not. It is possible that a single sentencing decision made by a duly elected judge poses a real threat to the liberty of the citizens of California. It is also perfectly understandable to be concerned about such a threat when the legislature is itself busy passing bills that will impose gag orders on law enforcement officials and prevent them from telling the public anything about the use of torture in police custody. This is hardly surprising. At the same time, we ought to remember that there are many safeguards against tyranny and excessive power exercised by judges, including the ability of courts to refuse to give certifications to the President, and the ability of judges to refuse to issue opinions that the majority dislikes. Those who want judges to have more power, whether they like it or not, need to come to terms with that reality. The best way to do that is to make sure that their wishes are heard by voters during the next Recall Election.

Read More