“Voi Voice” is the title of an article I’ve written about George Soros’ efforts to recall Arizona’s Sheriff Joe P. Arpaio. Sheriff Joe was named recently to head the new Arizona Police Department after two of his officers were found guilty of criminal acts during their investigation of a mayor who happened to be friends with the late Cuban Consulate General Castro. Despite the fact that the convictions were found by a grand jury, the Republican-led Arizona legislature has voted to remove the convictions. In essence, they are asking the courts for a new trial because they believe the jury got it wrong. This is simply an outrageous abuse of the constitution and an attempt by a majority of citizens to re-write the law in their favor. One must ask, when did citizens of the United States begin believing that they could rewrite the law in their favor? When did citizens forget their constitutional rights, and start believing they could pick and choose which portions of the constitution they wanted enforced? When did citizens believe they had a right to demand a political judge or U.S. Supreme Court justice to do their thinking for them? It seems the citizens of California just want other people to make decisions for them, rather than being left to the wheels of free markets where the rules are made by entrepreneurs, not by ruled by laws that were passed by legislators. The recall effort in Arizona is part of a broader nationwide movement to get district attorneys more politically independent, and to force prosecutors to seek the consent of judges before charging people with crimes. There was a statement issued by Michael Beckel, the district attorney of Santa Barbara County, California, on election night. He said, quote, “In my opinion, the most important thing that a district attorney can do in this election is to stick to the statutory sentencing guidelines.” Well, perhaps there are many issues in that particular statement, but I would submit to you that it is probably not what most voters believe they are voting for when they cast their ballot. What is the statutory guideline? The California state legislature passed a proposition on election day called the Protecting Individuals’ Rights after citizens became upset with the San Francisco Police Department’s handling of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. The new law requires that all felony charges involving an arrest or use of excessive force must be tried by the district attorney’s office with the help of a jury. This sounds good, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it is also bad from a public-relations standpoint, because now those who are upset at the prosecutor’s charging decisions will be telling everyone they know that they ought to vote for these folks so they don’t have to deal with a prosecutor who is too soft on criminals. Unfortunately, some of those California voters will end up voting against the recall campaign. Many won’t even bother to vote because they will realize that their Voices Against Recall petition was already on the November ballot. If this sounds familiar, you might want to remember Juries in the United States are humans too. Some will vote for the defendant, while others will look at the evidence presented and decide whether they believe the prosecutor presented enough evidence in support of the case. I hope you’ll consider this issue further in 2021. Please consider all this and think on it. Best wishes to all, including the Voices Against Recall!

” 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.

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.