How to Vote for So-called "Nonpartisan" Judges on Your 2018 Election Ballot

[PandoraAwakened]

Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2018, 09:03 PM - Edit history (4)

From the desk of: The American M.O.B. (Majority Opinion Blowback)

"My American M.O.B. over the GOP-Russian Mob any day, any time...Let's roll!"



The Days of "Impartial Judges" Are Long Gone

The takeaway that every Democratic and Independent voter should now have after witnessing the Kava-Naughty debacle is that JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS MATTER.

If you're in a county that has a "nonpartisan merit system" for judges, it can become especially hard to fully complete your ballot because of the sheer number of judges who might be up for Yes/No retention---all listed without notation of party affiliation or judicial ideology. In this type of system, judges are initially politically appointed and then face a retention election after being in office for a period of years.

Now, purists will say, "But judges are supposed to be impartial, so party ideology doesn't matter." To them I say, "WAKE THE HELL UP and smell the puke that's been hurled on you!"

With my own 2018 General Election Ballot in Arizona, 51 judges are listed, all of whom voters are supposed to decide whether to keep on the bench or not. Unfortunately, a lot of people skip this portion of the ballot because, short of looking up actual judicial decisions of each and every one of these guys (which might take you two serious weeks of research to achieve on top of your actual day job), most don't have a clue whether to say 'yes' or 'no' on any particular judge.


So, How Can You Determine Which Judges to Keep & Which to Dump?

Do you know who does vote 'yes' or 'no' for every last one of the "nonpartisan" judges up for retention? You got it, dear ones…far-right Rethuglicans. Why? How? It's really quite simple: The right-wingnut groups and Rethuglican PACs always provide judicial voting lists for their constituents…who to say 'yes' on and who to say 'no' on. Unfortunately, at least in my state, the Democratic organizations have not seemed to have picked up on this simple idea.

So, what should Democrats and Independents do to stop leaving the judicial retentions blank on their ballots? Duh…just vote exactly opposite however the Rethuglicans tell their sheeple to vote. Very simple and it doesn't take hours upon hours of research.

Where does one find such lists? That's simple, too. Just go to the websites of the far-right-wingnuts in your state. For example, in Arizona, I always go to "Intellectual Conservatives" (I know, what an oxymoron, right?) to know which judges to keep or dump by voting in reverse of what the Repugnants say. You know you have your own versions of this kind of crazy online in your state.

If you're not from Arizona, you can stop reading now and go follow through with the action plan I just gave you (if you have "nonpartisan" judges to contend with on your ballots). Then, post your results online to help your neighbors.


Arizona's "Judicial Performance Review"

Most Democrats I've talked to who do actually fill in the judicial part of the ballot do so based on the "recommendations" of the state's "Judicial Performance Review" (JPR), which, frankly, is the biggest crock of shart that ink has ever been wasted on.

The JPR is based on surveys completed mostly by lawyers, but also by a few litigants, jurors, witnesses, court staff, and a mysterious category called "parties who have contact with presiding judges." (WTF? I'm not sure I even want to know who's in that last group.)

Survey participants rank judges in general categories like "legal ability," "temperament," "communication skills," "administrative skills," etc. These surveys are then reviewed by a panel of 31-34 "volunteers" selected by Arizona's Rethuglican-packed Supreme Court. This commission then votes as to whether judges "meet" or "don't meet" standards, and all without the public ever getting to see the raw data upon which the commission's votes are supposedly based.

Not surprisingly, since this judicial evaluation system was put into place for Arizona's three largest counties back in 1992, very few judges ever get dinged in the JPR as "not meeting judicial standards." Everyone's usually just peachy-keen! In other words, if they have a pulse and a law degree and if they can sit on the bench without veering too far off into Kava-Naughty rage, then the sitting judges will meet the JPR standards.

What is interesting, though, is a look at the handful of judges through the years who have gotten the elusive JPR "does NOT meet standards." Only a couple of true miscreants are on that short list. The rest tend to be women judges who…surprise, surprise…bucked up against Rethuglican ideology! Imagine that…

Democrats, stop using the JPR as a "guide" to anything. It says nothing about judicial biases or ideologies, let alone the consequential decisions being made in these judges' courtrooms that have profound impact on public life.


For Arizonans Only: Supreme Court & Courts of Appeals; Superior Court (Maricopa County)

For Arizonans, I've reversed the "Friends of Kelli Ward" how-to-vote list for judges on the ballot this year. (Sorry, Pima County and Pinal County Superior Court judges were not on this list.) Because we all know Ward is her own special kind of Rethuglican cray-cray, we most certainly want to do exactly opposite what she says!

So, print out this list and use it to mark your ballots accordingly:

Justices of the Supreme Court:

BOLICK, CLINT---NO, NO, & HELL NO! [Biggest political-operative, Rethuglican ass-wipe in Arizona & leader of the Abolish Public Schools movement]

PELANDER, JOHN, III---NO

Judges of the Courts of Appeals:

SWANN, PETER---YES [Division 1]
ECKERSTROM, PETER---YES [Division 2]
ESPINOSA, PHILIP---NO [Division 2]
STARING, CHRISTOPHER---NO [Division 2]

Judges of the Maricopa Superior Court:

ANDERSON, ARTHUR T.--- YES
ASTROWSKY, BRAD H.--- NO
BACHUS, ALISON S.--- YES
BAILEY, CYNTHIA J.--- YES
BARTON, JANET E.--- NO
BERGIN, DAWN---YES
BLAIR, MICHAEL C.--- NO
BRAIN, MARK H.--- NO
BRODMAN, ROGER E.--- YES
CAMPAGNOLO, THEODORE---YES
COMO, GREGORY S.--- YES
COOPER, KATHERINE "KAY"---YES
CRAWFORD, JANICE K.--- NO
CULBERTSON, KRISTIN R.--- NO
CUNANAN, DAVID O.--- NO
DUNCAN, SALLY SCHNEIDER---YES
FINK, DEAN M.--- YES
FISH, GEOFFREY H.--- NO
FOSTER, GEORGE H.--- YES
FOX, DEWAIN D.--- NO
GRANVILLE, WARREN J.--- NO
GREEN, JENNIFER E.--- NO
HERROD, MICHAEL J.--- NO
HOPKINS, STEPHEN M.--- NO
KREAMER, JOSEPH C.--- YES
LEMAIRE, KERSTIN G.--- NO
MARTIN, DANIEL G.--- NO
MOSKOWITZ, FRANK W.--- YES
MROZ, ROSA---NO
MYERS, SAM J.--- NO
O'CONNOR, KAREN L.--- NO
OTIS, ERIN O.--- NO
PINEDA, SUSANNA C.--- YES
POLK, JAY M.--- NO
REA, JOHN CHRISTIAN---NO
RECKART, LAURA M.--- NO
ROGERS, JOSHUA D.--- NO
RUETER, JEFFREY A.--- YES
RYAN-TOUHILL, JENNIFER C.--- NO
SINCLAIR, JOAN M.--- NO
SMITH, JAMES D.--- NO
STEINER, RONEE KORBIN---NO
SUKENIC, HOWARD D.--- NO
SVOBODA, PAMELA HEARN---YES
VIOLA, DANIELLE J.--- NO
WARNER, RANDALL H.--- NO
WELTY, JOSEPH C.--- YES
WHITEHEAD, ROY CHARLES---YES

So there you go Arizonans...straight from the horse's ass of none other than Kelli Ward. Mark your ballots as noted above and stick it in Kelli's eye.

Now get those Early Ballots in, or show up at the polls on Nov. 6 armed (with knowledge) and ready!

[Raster]

1. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

[PandoraAwakened]

5. You are so welcome, Raster n/t

[demigoddess]

2. I went to the republican recommended list for my county

will just vote the opposite!!! thanks for the info!!!! I always hated voting for judges that hid their stance.

[PandoraAwakened]

6. Good on you, demigooddess! And don't forget to pass the info. on to your neighbors. n/t

[TheRealNorth]

3. Useful way to identify the RWNJ in local elections

If you are living in a smaller municipality it may be hard to find info on City/County/School board elections. Do a search on who the Local Chamber of Commerce is recommending or on the candidate write-ups. It gave me a good idea on who not to vote for.

[PandoraAwakened]

4. Great idea!

Most C of Cs are Rethuglican-run, so that is a great source for who/what to vote against.

[ThoughtCriminal]

7. I look at who appointed them

A quick google search provided the answers.

[PandoraAwakened]

11. Certainly better than skipping the judges completely

The problem I've always had with voting on judges based on who appointed them is that Democratic governors tend to try to balance their appointments with jurists from both sides of the aisle, whereas, of course, Rethuglican governors rarely do that.

Another thing that actually does occur is that, once appointed, sometimes judges start drifting away from their original positions. In contemporary history, we've seen that happen with three U.S. Supreme Court justices who were appointed by Rethuglican presidents, but who ended up making their mark as leftward-leaning judges.

Because of these reasons, I find it much more reliable to vote exactly opposite what the most extreme on the right say to do because their recommendations are based on current, in-court decisions that help or hurt their agenda, which is what I've dedicated myself to thwart.

[Mosby]

8. K and R.

[PandoraAwakened]

12. Thanks Mosby! n/t

[ChazII]

9. My ballot has already been mailed

but I will follow your recommendation next election. For my friends who have not yet voted I will have them look at this thread.

[PandoraAwakened]

15. Yes, please do spread the word ChazII! n/t

[Grown2Hate]

10. EXCELLENT, thank you! Saves me the time of Googling each one to see who appointed them. :)

[PandoraAwakened]

16. My pleasure!

If you're interested in what else you can do for this election, I just posted another article at:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211312669

[Blue_true]

13. Brilliant idea.

Let the republican goon organizations spend the money to trash good Judges and elevate thugs and vote in the exact opposite of how they say vote.

Here in Florida, I looked at the Judge's history and who appointed the judge. Vote NO on the Supreme Court Judge retention, Judge Alan Lawson is a Scott lackey. There was a Fifth Circuit Court Judge on my ballot, Eric Eisnaugle, vote NO, he too is a Scott lackey.

[PandoraAwakened]

17. Good going, Blue_true!

If you haven't already done so, you should post your judicial recommendations in DU's "Florida" forum as well under "Places" / "U.S."

If you think it will help people to understand the importance of voting correctly on the judges, please feel free to provide the https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211306547 link to this article as well.

[MrScorpio]

14. Hey, it works!

I'm voting against all of these motherfuckers:

http://transformmi.com/archives/2058

They make it so easy:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2018vgmff/macomb.pdf

[PandoraAwakened]

18. Excellent job, MrScorpio!

If you haven't already done so, you should post these links as well in DU's "Michigan" forum under "Places" / "U.S."

If you think it will help people to understand the importance of voting correctly on judges, please feel free to provide the https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211306547 link to this article as well.

[Baitball Blogger]

19. .

[PandoraAwakened]

22. Thanks Baitball Blogger! n/t

[GemDigger]

20. Thank you for posting this.

I was hoping I could find one for my state and sure enough.... they did.

[PandoraAwakened]

23. Good job, GemDigger!

If you haven't already done so, you should post your findings in DU's "Montana" forum under "Places" / "U.S."

If you think it will help people to understand the importance of voting correctly on judges, please feel free to provide the https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211306547 link to this article as well.

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. Excellent job......most excellent

These are the kind of posts which make DU so outstanding.

[PandoraAwakened]

24. Thanks for the encouragement, dixiegrrrrl!

I'm relatively new to DU. As a long-form writer, I'm well aware that reading lengthy posts is not exactly at the height of popularity. However, if even a handful of people find what I write to be informative and helpful, then that works for me!