We’ve been getting a lot of questions about the 17 judges on your ballots – this section IS included in the Orange Juice 2026 Voters’ Guide, but it’s buried in the middle and hard to find. Also, it’s changed a little over this past month as we learn more. We’ve been getting a lot of good input too from attorneys we know. So hopefully you’ll find this convenient if we just list the judicial races here. Our endorsements for them I mean.
The Republican Party has put out their yesses and noes, and we can’t just assume they’re always wrong. The Democrats haven’t put out anything, but one Democrat Club said to vote yes on all 17 of them. NO. Some of these judges do NOT deserve your yes vote. But let’s start with first and most important:
MOST IMPORTANT: YES on both Groban and Evans!
The first two names on your ballot are Josh Groban and Kelli Evans, of the California Supreme Court. Do you remember that goofy Trumpy quasi-cowboy Riverside Sheriff who ran for Governor – Chad Bianco – and how he stole thousands of ballots to try to prove some stupid election conspiracy theory, and how the California Supreme Court forced him to give those ballots back?
Judges Groban and Evans were part of that decision. For that reason they are being targeted by the Republicans. The Republicans have always been better and more organized than us Democrats on downballot races like the judicial ones. Don’t let these two go down for voting the right way on some anti-voting conspiracy bullshit! If you’re a Democrat, or independent, or ANYONE who doesn’t believe in Trumpy election rigging conspiracies, then PLEASE MAKE SURE TO VOTE YES ON GROBAN AND EVANS!
Next.
Some make the lazy assumption that we should just go ahead and vote yes on all these judges, give them the benefit of the doubt, just because they were all appointed by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom (or his predecessor.) What is not taken into account is that Governor Newsom, to put it delicately, is ofttimes something of a dingleberry.
For various reasons, we voted NO on FOUR of these judges, and we’ll say why below:
NO on DO and DATO, BECAUSE: The Voice of San Diego sued the San Diego Unified School District a few years ago, because the district was taking an average of 399 days to respond to the Voice’s CPRA requests. San Diego’s Superior Court ruled in favor of the School District, an awful ruling for transparency, investigative journalism and plaintiffs’ rights. The Voice appealed, and Justices Do and Dato upheld that anti-transparency ruling, concluding that the CPRA’s requirement to make records “promptly available” doesn’t actually bind agencies to hard production deadlines – and then to make it worse, they PUBLISHED that opinion (something that doesn’t have to be done) to make it easier for other entities to use it as a precedent! We feel that justifies voting against Do and Dato. Read their ruling HERE, and read more about the case HERE.
NO on RAPHAEL (the Republicans say yes) because: According to our attorney source he’s well qualified for an appellate position, but “not good on criminal justice issues.” I asked for more detail on HOW he’s not good on criminal justice issues, and got THIS valuable input:
Raphael has a pattern (from the cases I’ve read) of narrowly interpreting reform laws and limiting access to court review. This is in the spirit of judicial economy. He’s not misinterpreting the statutes, just keeping them narrow. I think the vote for Raphael really depends on what people value in their judicial system… You can find his profile, columns, and list of opinions HERE.
People v. Faustinos
People in prison can’t appeal when a judge refuses to act on their request for resentencing under § 1172.1, even if the judge wrongly says it has no power to help. That breaks with another appeals court ruling (Chatman) and pushes them into habeas petitions, which are slower and don’t come with an automatic appointed lawyer.In re Mattison
A new law wipes out restitution fines after 10 years, and Raphael held that this doesn’t entitle anyone to a full resentencing. A full resentencing would allow them to argue for a shorter sentence under today’s more lenient laws. The fine still goes away, but the ruling closes a route that could shorten folks’ sentences.People v. Brown
Raphael upheld the maximum six-year robbery sentence, even though probation recommended four. Raphael said the defendant’s trauma didn’t count toward decreasing his sentence because nothing tied it to the crime, which makes the state’s trauma-based presumption of a lower sentence harder to use.
AND NO on MOTOIKE, because: She has faced a lot of controversy over her rulings. She is way to far into the “Textualism” camp. She has been REVERSED several times by the California Supreme Court.
SURE, YES on the rest.
Some of the others we are impressed with, some of them we don’t know a lot about. But if you want them all in order, the order of your ballot, here you go:
Supreme Court:
- Josh Groban YES!
- Kelli Evans YES!
Division 1:
- Julia Kelety – “Yes – Cares very deeply about getting procedure right.” (Republicans also say yes.)
- Jose Castillo – “Cautious Yes – Didn’t find anything objectionable.” (Rs also say yes.)
- Truc Do – NO (see above)
- William Dato – NO (see above)
- Eran Bermudez – Cautious Yes – “She’s a new judge appointed only in August. Not enough information to go either way. She seems like she has a good relationship with prosecutors and cops, which I don’t love, but not enough to dissuade me from wanting to see her track record develop over time”. Rs also say yes.
- Lisa Rodriguez – “Hesitant Yes – Too new to know her track record. Also appointed in August.” Rs also say yes.
- David Rubin – “Yes – Good on procedure, consumer-conscious, good record on voting policy.” Rs also say yes.
Division 2:
- Corey Lee – “Yes – I only looked at his decision in this case. I think he is fair on procedure and clear on interpretation of the law” R’s also say yes.
- Michael Raphael – No – see above.
Division 3:
- Joanne Motoike – NO! (see above)
- Thomas Delaney – “Yes – cares about protecting people from housing discrimination; also decent on anti-SLAPP.” Rs also say yes.
- Nathan Scott – “Yes – good on procedure.” Rs also say yes.
- Deborah Servino – Cautious yes. My associate editor is very unimpressed with her, but doesn’t want me to share his observations.
- Martha Gooding – “Yes – reasonable, nothing objectionable.” Rs also say yes.
- Juliet Macaulay – “Hesitant yes – too new to know her track record – appointed in August.” – R’s say no, for what that’s worth.
We are still open to more info on these 15 characters. We understand this year’s urge to vote as soon as possible (in fact I already voted on No Kings Day before I knew some of this) but a lot of things are not known, are not revealed, till later. If you wanna get your ballot perfectly right, keep checking back till Nov. 3! We don’t think you’ll be someone who forgets!
