Are attack ads and big money bringing politics into how we vote for judges?
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Attack-style political ads targeted Judge Leon Dixson in Placer County.
- Judicial candidates face strict campaign rules banning promises or false claims.
- A PAC gave Dixson $45,000 and local parties made endorsements.
During the lead-up to this month’s primary elections, some voters in Placer County were startled to receive a text message with an image that looked like a law enforcement logo. Just beneath it was a red banner declaring, in capital letters, “PUBLIC SAFETY ALERT.”
But the message wasn’t about a missing person or an impending storm. It was a political ad attacking a local judge. The ad showed an edited image of the judge, Leon Dixson, next to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who appointed Dixson to the bench two years ago.
“Defeat Gavin Newsom’s Judge Leon Dixson,” the message continued, using language common in Republican campaigns to signal criticism of the Democratic governor. “Vote for a judge for all of Placer County.”
Elections for superior court judges in California are usually staid affairs, with candidates bound by rules of decorum more suited to a courtroom than to the rough-and-tumble world of politics.
But the attack ads and political endorsements generally associated with running for other offices have started showing up in judicial races, alarming some judges and raising questions about whether candidates who engage in such activity have the right temperament for the job.
“The political attack has been so normalized that it’s bleeding over into judicial races,” said Jen Tierney, a political consultant who represented Dixson in his successful bid to keep his job.
Rules limit their campaigns
Superior court judges in California serve six-year terms, and can be appointed by the governor to finish out an existing term or elected to an open seat — depending on when the job they are seeking becomes available. Either way, at the end of a term, they must face the voters in what is known as a retention election.
But judges are bound by strict rules limiting what they can say during campaigns. These rules, meant to ensure that the judge will hear cases in an impartial manner and retain the trust of the public, specifically ban statements on how a candidate might rule on cases or interpret the law. They bar candidates for judicial office from making false statements about their opponents and require them to review all campaign materials sent out on their behalf.
If candidates violate these rules, they can be investigated and sanctioned by the Commission on Judicial Performance, a state agency.
The result is that most contests for judicial seats are pretty sleepy, with candidates limiting themselves to speeches and mailers listing their qualifications rather than attacking their opponents.
Shift in campaigns
But in recent years, candidates for judge have been far more likely to engage in political-style campaigning than in the past, said Crystal M. Litz, a Los Angeles based consultant who specializes in judicial races. The attack ads, distorted social media posts and other hallmarks of today’s fractious political environment were noticeable this year in several races that she advised, Litz said.
“I have never seen a cycle like this one, in terms of the most vitriolic, just negative campaigning in a judicial space,” she said.
Judicial candidates advised by Litz have been subject to political attacks from both the left and the right in races this year, she said. In one case in Los Angeles, supporters of her candidate’s opponent raised hot-button progressive issues such as questioning the judicial aspirant’s support for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and suggested she might have a drinking problem, social media posts show.
Some candidates, she said, marketed themselves in an overtly political way, saying in deep-blue L.A. that they were Democrats as a way to imply that their opponents were not.
The character of some judicial races began to change in the 2022 election cycle, as part of the backlash to police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man who was asphyxiated by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020, she said.
“It changed definitively, and suddenly we’re seeing attacks in Democratic club meetings,” Litz said. “People are arguing and posting ideological things in chats. It was like nothing I’d ever seen before in a judicial race.”
Politics plays a role
To a degree, politics have always played a role in judicial selections.
Those seeking appointments have better luck if they are affiliated with the same party as the governor. Aspirants from the opposing party often feel their only route to the bench is via an election.
Whatever their personal politics, candidates must campaign and seek funding and endorsements. Adding to a sense of partisanship, local Democratic and Republican clubs frequently endorse candidates and make modest contributions.
Being tough on crime is widely perceived to enhance a judge’s chances of winning retention — so much so that jurists facing voters have been shown by several studies to impose harsher sentences on convicted defendants in the months leading up to an election.
But the divisiveness of today’s political environment could damage trust in the court system — and make some candidates vulnerable to sanctions, said Dixson.
“These things really shouldn’t be politicized,” said Dixson, who defeated Rocklin Mayor Dave Bass by a wide margin. “Because people shouldn’t have to worry coming into the courtroom whether or not somebody belongs to their political party.”
According to the latest election results, Dixson led Bass 58% to 42%.
In Yolo County, Sacramento County Court Commissioner Ryan Davis appeared to eke out a victory over Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Diane Ortiz in a closely watched open-seat race. Davis led 51% to 49% in the latest count, and Ortiz conceded Friday night.
Dixson, a registered Democrat and one of two Black judges in Placer County, was endorsed by the Placer County Democratic Club and received $750 from Placer Women Democrats.
As the race heated up, he also received a $45,000 contribution from a PAC affiliated with the California Judges Association, bringing his total fundraising to $160,000, campaign finance records show.
Bass said he decided on the unusual move of challenging a sitting judge after he was approached by law enforcement officials and others who disagreed with decisions Dixson had made in his short time on the bench.
Almost immediately, he received pushback from judges’ organizations, said Bass, who works as a prosecutor in the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office. Within days of his announcement, Bass heard from a law school professor and former boss, who said he was getting calls about the race.
“He received calls from what would easily be perceived liberal groups about the race, and about a former student who is running against an African American judge,” Bass said. The perception, Bass said, was that he was challenging Dixson because of his race.
A registered Republican, Bass hired a political adviser who works with conservative candidates and quickly received the endorsements of Republican politicians and law enforcement groups.
His consultant, Dave Gilliard, campaigned aggressively, moving beyond the typical listing of a judicial candidate’s qualifications. In one social media post, he said Dixson was a “bad judge” and referred to him disparagingly as “Let em Loose Leon.”
Gilliard’s wife, retired judge Maryanne Gilliard, wrote an op-ed criticizing a ruling Dixson made regarding a local youth theater teacher who was later convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense after recording girls without their consent in public spaces. Two other retired judges later published their own piece refuting Gilliard’s contention.
Gilliard did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Bee.
Bass, who raised about $100,000 in campaign contributions, said he has been reflecting on the race in recent days.
He views the organized pushback against his campaign by retired judges and others supporting Dixson to be as political as his campaign’s actions — albeit more quiet and less visible to the public.
“Not condoning it, but do I think that things got political?” Bass asked. “Yeah. But I think that it’s inherently political. I just think that people don’t like to admit it.”
Attacks from left as well as right
Although Bass’ campaign arguably attacked Dixson from the right, other groups are backing judicial candidates they feel will bring a progressive approach to the bench.
The Los Angeles based group La Defensa, which describes itself as “femme-led and abolitionist,” advocates to reduce pre-trial detention and says it wants to reduce it’s county’s reliance on incarceration. The organization developed a website called “Rate My Judge” that asks defendants and others their opinions on judges’ demeanor, sensitivity, neutrality, fairness and lawfulness. In the 2023-2024 election cycle, a PAC affiliated with the group donated nearly $570,000 to judicial candidates, state records show.
The group, which did not donate to campaigns this year, instead developed several voter guides for judges, said Gabriela Vazquez, La Defensa’s deputy director. Its goal, she said, is increase diversity among judges. Because many judges previously worked as prosecutors, La Defensa hope to elevate candidates who spent time as public defenders, she said.
Her group was one of those that Litz cited as injecting politics into judicial campaigns.
But Vazquez said the process for choosing judges has always been political, requiring relationships with officials to seek appointments, and campaign cash and a winning message to seek elections. Before the group started backing candidates, Los Angeles County voters had never chosen a public defender as judge, she said.
“To the question of are they more political, my question back is, ‘Haven’t they always been?’”
Court decisions based on popularity?
California’s system for choosing judges is a compromise between two competing legal philosophies. One argues that judges will be more impartial if they do not have to face voters amid the volatile forces of public opinion, while the other contends that appointing judges will make them beholden to powerful leaders.
In 2018, the California Judges Association created a Judicial Fairness Commission, meant to combat what it viewed as unfair attacks on sitting judges. The group was formed after the successful recall that year of former Judge Aaron Persky in Santa Clara County over a ruling in a sexual assault case that opponents viewed as too lenient, said George Eskin, who co-chairs its retired judges initiative.
The judges association came to Dixson’s aid with endorsements, campaign cash and the op-ed — actions Bass views as heavy-handed and political, but Dixson’s supporters said were necessary to protect a judge from unwarranted attacks.
“It’s so important that judges not make decisions based on popularity,” said Eskin, a retired judge from Santa Barbara County.
Eskin favors changing the system for choosing judges to one in which jurists are appointed to a single 15-year term, eliminating the need for elections while also ensuring that jurists do eventually leave the bench to make way for others.
Still, he and others said that for the most part, judicial races remain civil. The Davis-Ortiz race in Yolo County largely focused on the candidates’ qualifications rather than ideological differences, despite remaining one of the closest judicial contests in the region.
“It’s easy to assume that a judicial seat contest like this is related to the broader political environment, but we shouldn’t read too much into it,” said David A. Carrillo, executive director of Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center, referring to the race between Dixson and Bass.
“Although they’re uncommon, occasional challenges to sitting judges or open-seat catfights do occur, so this isn’t exactly new,” Carrillo said. “And, as seems here, the challenger in these stories often fails.”
