Aaron Persky recall, Santa Clara County, California (2018)

Elections in California, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 22
• Early voting: Oct. 8 - Nov. 5
• Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: Yes
• Voter ID: No
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Lt. Gov • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State Assembly • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • Primaries in California, 2018

• Recall efforts
  • Recall efforts by state
  • Recall efforts by office
  • Recall efforts by year
  • Upcoming recall elections
• Local recalls
  • City council recalls
  • Mayoral recalls
  • County commission recalls
  • County official recalls
  • School board recalls
  • Sheriff recalls
  • Special district recalls
• State and federal recalls
  • State executive recalls
  • State legislator recalls
  • U.S. Congress recalls
• Laws governing recall
  • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls
  • States that require grounds for recalls
• Analysis
  • What are recalls?
  • Recall terms
  • 2024 mid-year analysis
  • 2023 year-end analysis
  • 2023 mid-year analysis
  • 2022 year-end analysis
  • 2022 mid-year analysis
  • 2021 year-end analysis
  • 2021 mid-year analysis
  • 2020 year-end analysis
  • 2020 mid-year analysis
  • 2019 year-end analysis
  • 2019 mid-year analysis
  • 2018 year-end analysis
  • 2018 mid-year analysis
  • 2017 year-end analysis
  • 2017 mid-year analysis
  • 2016 year-end analysis
  • 2016 mid-year analysis

Aaron Persky, Santa Clara County judge
Recall status
Approved
Recall election date
June 5, 2018
Table of contents
Recall vote Recall supporters Recall opponents Background Timeline Polls Path to the ballot
See also
External links Footnotes

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky was recalled on June 5, 2018. Cindy Seeley Hendrickson defeated Angela Storey to replace Persky.

Stanford University law professor Michele Dauber initiated the recall effort in June 2016 on the grounds that Persky was too lenient in his sentencing of Stanford student Brock Turner.

In a case that attracted national attention, Turner was arrested and charged with sexual assault in January 2015 after he was found lying on top of an unconscious woman on Stanford University's campus. Turner was convicted of sexual assault, and Persky sentenced him to six months in jail, three years of probation, and registration as a sex offender. The maximum sentence for the charges was 14 years in person. The victim read an impact statement at his sentencing that was published by news outlets such as Buzzfeed and The Independent. Its publication was the catalyst for Persky's recall.

Recall supporters argued that Turner' sentence was too light and would negatively impact women's safety. Recall opponents argued that Persky acted appropriately during sentencing and that recalling a judge over one decision would violate judicial independence principles.

The recall election ballot had two parts: (1) a question about whether Persky should be recalled and (2) a list of nominees to succeed him. Since a majority of voters voted to recall Persky, the nominee with the most votes, Hendrickson, was elected to the remainder of his term, which was slated to end in 2022.

Persky and the campaign to recall him each submitted a statement to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters for inclusion on the ballot. Persky and Dauber also each formed a campaign committee: "Retain Judge Persky — No Recall" and the "Committee to Recall Judge Persky," respectively.

The Persky recall election was the first judicial recall in any state to make the ballot since 1982, according to Joshua Spivak of The Recall Elections Blog. The last successful judicial recall in the country was in Wisconsin in 1977, and the last successful judicial recalls in California were in 1932.

Click here to read more about the recall election's path to the ballot.

California voter? Here's what you need to know.
Recall Election	June 5, 2018
Candidate Filing Deadline	March 2, 2018
Registration Deadline	May 21, 2018
Absentee Application Deadline	May 29, 2018
Early Voting Deadline	Available from May 7, 2018, to June 5, 2018
Polling locations: Go to this page to find early voting locations and your assigned precinct for election day.

Recall results

Aaron Persky recall, 2018
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Yes	61.6%	202,849
No	38.4%	126,459
Total Votes		329,308
Source: Santa Clara County elections

Aaron Persky recall (replacement candidate), 2018
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Cindy Seeley Hendrickson	68.0%	174,045
Angela Storey	32.0%	82,042
Total Votes		256,087
Source: Santa Clara County elections

Election updates

• May 8, 2018: Persky holds a press conference to speak out against the recall effort.
• May 1, 2018: The California Supreme Court rejects Persky's final appeal to stop the recall.
• March 26, 2018: The appellate court denies Persky's appeal to remove the recall election from the ballot.
• March 20, 2018: A state appellate court hears arguments in an appeal by Persky to remove the recall election from the June ballot.
• February 8, 2018: Attorney Angela Storey announces her candidacy for the recall election.
• February 6, 2018: The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approves the recall election for the June 5 ballot.
• October 2017: Attorney Cindy Seeley Hendrickson announces her candidacy for the recall election.

Candidates

The following candidates filed to replace Persky.

Cindy Seeley Hendrickson

Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Cindy Hendrickson ran to replace Persky by emphasizing her background in victim advocacy, experience as a prosecutor, and what she calls her sensitivity to implicit and explicit bias after growing up in a multiracial household. She announced her campaign in October 2017. Hendrickson donated to the Persky recall campaign and was endorsed by the recall effort's leader, Stanford law professor Michelle Dauber.

Although she supported the recall, Hendrickson declined to express her views on the Brock Turner case or whether she believed that Persky erred in Turner's sentencing. However, she did speak about her handling of sexual assault cases as a prosecutor, saying, "I felt like I really had an opportunity to make a difference not only in the lives of the victims but also in making the public more safe.”

When asked about recalls in general, she said, " It's important that judges, who are making decisions about people's lives, that they reflect the values of the community they serve. If people in a community feel that a judge ceases or has never reflected those values, they have their right to use the tools of democracy."

Hendrickson received her undergraduate degree from Stanford University and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Angela Storey

Attorney Angela Storey ran to replace Persky despite her opposition to his recall. She said her experience in civil and criminal law would make her a fair and qualified candidate to replace him if he was recalled. She announced her campaign in February 2018. According to Persky ally LaDoris Cordell, recall opponents generally supported Storey. Mercury News also endorsed her.

Storey said she opposed the recall (despite being a victim of sexual assault in college) because of judicial independence principles and the possibility that judges would give harsher sentences to people of color if they feared recalls.

"From my perspective, a judge's job is to make difficult choices and to make rulings that people aren't going to always agree with," she said. "We don't want our judges necessarily looking over their shoulders trying to gauge public opinion." She said that Turner's sentence was within the law, but she declined to say whether she agreed with it. She also called the recall a “dangerous precedent” and said that voters should focus on changing laws when they disagree with outcomes rather than removing judges.

Storey worked as a trial lawyer in the insurance, construction, and business law fields after being admitted to the California Bar in 2001. She joined her husband's practice, afterward known as Storey & Storey, in 2013 and practiced personal injury law. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Los Angeles and her J.D. from Santa Clara Law School.

Background

The case

Brock Turner was arrested on January 18, 2015, after two graduate students saw him lying on top of an unconscious and partially clothed woman behind a dumpster on the Stanford University campus. Turner was found guilty of three felonies: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.

Persky sentenced Turner to six months in county jail, three years of probation, and registration as a sex offender. The maximum sentence for the charges of which Turner was convicted was 14 years in state prison. Prosecutors requested a sentence of six years in state prison, probation officers recommended six months in county jail, and Turner asked for four months in jail.

Turner's victim, referred to as Emily Doe, read a victim impact statement at his sentencing. The statement was published by news outlets, including BuzzFeed News and the Independent, and was a catalyst for the recall campaign.

Persky's career

Aaron Persky was appointed to the Superior Court of Santa Clara County by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in September 2003. He was elected to a full term in 2004 and re-elected in 2010. He ran for re-election unopposed in 2016 and did not appear on the ballot.

Similar cases to Turner decision

A central argument for the recall campaign was that Persky made five rulings similar to the Turner case where he showed bias toward white male athletes accused of assaulting women. Palo Alto Weekly, whose editorial board supported the recall, reviewed the five cases. The analysis can be read here.

The reporter conducting the analysis wrote:

“

The five cases differ from the Turner case in that none went to a jury trial. All of the sentences except one were negotiated through plea bargains, meaning the district attorney's office and defense agreed to certain charges and punishments. In an interview with the Weekly, Persky described a judge's role in plea bargains as hands-off. It's rare for a judge to object to a plea deal on his or her own accord, he said. The role of the probation department also differed across the cases. Some but not all of the cases had full probation reports, meaning the probation department interviewed the defendant and possibly the victim, conducted a risk assessment, reviewed the police report and made a formal sentencing recommendation to the judge. In two cases, Persky waived the referral to probation, meaning the report the department produced was limited.

”

Timeline

• January 18, 2015: Turner is arrested for sexual assault. He posts $150,000 bail and is released from jail later in the day.
• January 28, 2015: Turner is charged and pleads not guilty to two counts of rape, two counts of penetration, and one count of assault with intent to rape.
• October 7, 2015: The two rape charges are dismissed, and Turner is ordered to stand trial on the remaining charges in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
• March 30, 2016: Turner is found guilty of the three remaining charges by a jury.
• June 2, 2016: Persky sentences Turner to six months in jail and three years of probation and orders him to register as a sex offender.
• June 6, 2016: Dauber says she will start a recall campaign against Persky.
• June 9, 2016: Democratic political consultants Joe Trippi and John Shallman join the recall campaign team.
• June 10, 2016: The California Legislative Women's Caucus announces that it will raise money for the recall campaign effort.
• September 2, 2016: Turner is released from jail, and the recall campaign holds a rally with 14 speakers, including Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt, Senate Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney, U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, California state Sen. James Beall Jr., and state Assembly member Nora Campos.
• December 19, 2016: Persky is cleared of misconduct by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the state's judicial disciplinary agency.
• June 26, 2017: The recall campaign files a notice of intent to recall Persky.
• August 9, 2017: The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters approves the recall petitions for signature gathering.
• August 11, 2017: Judge Marjorie Laird Carter approves Persky's request for a temporary restraining order against the recall effort.
• August 28, 2017: Judge Kay Tsenin lifts the temporary restraining order.
• October 2017: Santa Clara County assistant district attorney Cindy Seeley Hendrickson announces her candidacy for the potential recall election and begins raising money for her campaign.
• January 11, 2018: The recall campaign submits its signatures to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.
• January 23, 2018: The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters announces that it has verified enough signatures to qualify the recall for the June 5 ballot.
• February 6, 2018: The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approves the recall election for the June 5 ballot.
• February 8, 2018: Civil attorney Angela Storey announces her candidacy for the recall election.
• February 14, 2018: Dauber reports receiving an envelope containing white powder and a rape threat.
• March 1, 2018: Daniel Frisiello is arrested for sending white powder to Dauber, as well as to President Donald Trump's (R) son Donald Trump Jr., U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), actor and U.S. House candidate Antonio Sabato Jr. (R), and interim U.S. Attorney Nicola Hanna.
• March 20, 2018: A three-judge panel of California's 6th District Court of Appeal hears oral arguments in an appeal by Persky to remove the recall election from the June ballot.
• March 26, 2018: The appellate court rejects Persky's appeal to remove the recall from the ballot. According to the court, there was no "constitutional basis on which to delay the processing of the current recall petition."
• May 1, 2018: The California Supreme Court rejects Persky's final appeal to stop the recall.
• June 5, 2018: Recall election date

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

A KPIX/Survey USA poll released May 22, 2018, found that 49 percent of voters would vote to recall Persky, 36 percent were opposed to his recall, and 15 percent were undecided. Men supported Persky by a 3 percent margin, while women opposed him by a 26 percent margin. To replace Persky, 16 percent of voters favored Angela Storey, 15 percent favored Cindy Seeley Hendrickson, and 69 percent were undecided.

An FM3 Research poll conducted from May 5-13, 2018, found that 46 percent of voters would vote to recall Persky, 33 percent were opposed to his recall, and 21 percent were undecided. Men supported Persky by a 7 percent margin, while women opposed him by a 30 percent margin. The poll surveyed 559 likely voters and had a margin of error of 4.1 percent.

A KPIX/Survey USA poll released in March 2018 found that 56 percent of voters supported Persky's recall.

A Sextant Strategies & Research poll found that 66 percent of respondents would vote to recall Persky. The poll, which surveyed 776 registered voters, was conducted from June 20-22, 2016.

Campaign finance

As of May 5, 2018, the committee to recall Persky had raised more than $1 million. It raised $322,785.38 in 2016, $365,159.78 in 2017, $273,206.04 from January 2018 to April 21, 2018, and at least $232,000 in late April and early May 2018.

As of May 5, 2018, the committees to retain Persky, No Recall of Judge Persky and Retain Judge Persky — No Recall, had raised about $890,000 combined. No Recall of Judge Persky raised $188,735 from January 2018 to April 21, 2018. Retain Judge Persky — No Recall raised $254,291 from January 2018 to April 21, 2018 and $446,751.47 in 2017.

Recall supporters

As of March 22, 2018, the following were listed on the Committee to Recall Judge Persky's website as supporters of the recall effort:

Publications

• Palo Alto Weekly Editorial Board
• Verde Magazine of Palo Alto High School Editorial Board

Elected and appointed officials

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)
• Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)
• Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA)
• Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
• Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
• Former Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
• State Sen. Kevin de Leon (D)
• State Sen. James Beall Jr. (D)
• State Sen. Gerald Hill (D)
• Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D)
• Assemblyman David Chiu (D)
• Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D)
• Assemblyman Tony Thurmond (D)
• Former Assemblywoman Nora Campos (D)
• California Board of Equalization Chairwoman Fiona Ma (D)
• Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith
• Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Director Barbara Keegan
• Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Director Gary Kremen
• West Valley Mission Community College District Trustee Adrienne Grey
• West Valley Mission Community College District Trustee Randi Kinman
• Santa Clara County Board of Education President Michael Chang
• Santa Clara County Board of Education Vice President Rosemary Kamei
• Santa Clara County Board of Education member Grace Mah
• San Jose Vice Mayor Magdalena Carrasco
• San Jose City Councillor Raul Peralez
• San Jose City Councillor Donald Rocha
• Gilroy City Councillor Peter Leroe-Munoz
• Los Altos Hills Vice Mayor John Radford
• Milpitas Mayor Rich Tran
• Milpitas City Councillor Anthony Phan
• Former Milpitas Mayor Bob Livengood
• Monte Sereno City Councillor Curtis Rogers
• Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel
• Mountain View City Councillor Margaret Abe-Koga
• Monte Sereno City Councillor Evert Wolsheimer
• Palo Alto City Councillor Cory Wolbach
• Former Palo Alto Mayor Patrick Burt
• Saratoga City Councillor Rishi Kumar
• Santa Clara City Councillor Dominic Caserta
• Sunnyvale City Councillor Nancy Smith
• Alum Rock Union Elementary School District Board Vice President Andres Quintero
• Berryessa Union School District Board President Thelma Boac
• Berryessa Union School District Board Vice President Hugo Jimenez
• Campbell Union High School District Board Clerk and Trustee Stacey Brown
• Campbell Union High School District Board member Kalen Gallagher
• Cupertino Union School District Board member Liang-Fang Chao
• Franklin-McKinley School District Board member Omar Torres
• Former Franklin-McKinley School District Board member Maya Esparza
• Los Altos School District Board member Bryan Johnson
• Los Gatos Union School District Board member Daniel Snyder
• Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District Board member Cynthia Chang
• Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District Board Clerk and Trustee Katherine Tseng
• Milpitas Unified School District Board President Daniel Bobay
• Morgan Hill Unified School District Board member Gino Borgioli
• Mountain View Whisman School District Board member Jose Gutierrez, Jr.
• Orchard School District Board Clerk and Trustee Stephanie Hill
• Palo Alto Unified School District Board member Todd Collins
• Palo Alto Unified School District Board member Ken Dauber
• Palo Alto Unified School District Board member Jennifer DiBrienza
• Santa Clara Unified School District Board member Mark Richardson
• Saratoga Union School District Board member Sophia Kao
• Conejo Valley Unified School District Board member Betsy Connolly
• Former Palo Alto Unified School District Board member Amado Padilla
• Former Sacramento City Unified School District Board member Diana Rodriguez-Suruki
• Former California State Board of Education member Allen Seid
• Former state Sen. Jason Carter (D-GA)
• Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Chandra Brooks
• Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Shanta Franco-Clausen
• Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Suzanne E. Doty
• Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Jennifer Briscoe
• Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Teresa Fiss
• Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women member Yan Zhou
• Campbell Department of Parks and Recreation Chairwoman Celeste Walker
• Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioner Kavita Tankha
• Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commissioner Thida Cornes
• Santa Monica Landmarks Commissioner Richard Brand
• Santa Monica Commissioner Elena Christopoulos

Organizations and political activists

• South Bay Labor Council
• California Nurses Association
• Communications Workers of America, CWA Local 9423
• Region 7 California Democratic Party
• Democratic Party of California Chairman Eric Bauman
• Democratic Party of California Women's Caucus Chairwoman Christine Pelosi
• Democratic Party of California Executive Board member Andrea Reyna
• Santa Clara County Democratic Party finance director Prameela Bartholomeusz
• Santa Clara County Democratic Club
• Democratic Activists for Women Now Democratic Club
• Democratic Activists for Women Now Vice President Frances Herbert
• San Jose Brown Berets
• Feminist Majority
• Feminist Majority President Ellie Smeal
• Feminist Majority Policy Director Gaylynn Burroughs
• Feminist Majority Executive Director Kathy Spillar
• National Organization for Women
• National Organization for Women—New York
• National Organization for Women—New York City
• National Organization for Women—California
• National Organization for Women—San Diego
• National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill
• National Organization for Women—New York City Advocacy Director Jane Manning
• National Organization for Women—California President Jerilyn Stapleton
• National Organization for Women—San Diego President Michelle Gell
• National Organization for Women—Sacramento President Kolieka Siegle
• National Women's Political Caucus of Silicon Valley
• NARAL Pro-Choice California Director Amy Everitt
• Voices of Women for Change President Taraneh Roosta
• Women's Media Center President Julie Burton
• Former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile
• Bay Area Women's March President Jenny Higgins Bradanini
• United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta
• Women Donors Network President and Chief Executive Officer Donna Hall
• Bay Area Women's March co-organizer Jennie Richardson
• Tabla African Theater Ensemble co-founder Viera Whye

Community figures

• XQ Superschool Project Chief Executive Officer Russlynn Ali
• Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Marcella Alsan
• University of California at San Francisco Medical School Professor Tamara Alliston
• Y Combinator President Sam Altman
• Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Ben Barres
• Dartmouth College Professor Susan Brison
• Carleton College Professor Anita Chikkatur
• Lex Machina Chief Executive Officer Josh Becker
• Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Richard Bland
• Attorney Lisa Bloom
• Film producer Nina Yang Bongiovi
• U.S. House of Representatives candidate Bryan Caforio (D)
• BlogHer co-founder Elisa Camahort
• Thinkspace founder Peter Chee
• Writer Adolpha Cole
• Palo Alto community leader Gina Dalma
• Film director Kirby Dick
• Redpoint partner Satish Dharmaraj
• Stanford University Professor Emerita Sandra Drake
• Film producer Lena Dunham
• Pixar photography director Danielle Feinberg
• Comedian Nikki Glaser
• Greylock investor Sarah Guo
• U.S. House of Representatives candidate Josh Harder (D)
• Peninsula Open Space Trust Board of Directors member Christy Holloway
• Author John Hodgman
• Greylock partner Reid Hoffman
• Sense of Wonder co-founder Erin Hoffman-John
• University of California at Berkeley Professor Victoria Kahn
• Internet Law Center founder Bennett Kelley
• Crowdpac founder Gisel Kordestani
• Author Jon Krakauer
• Television producer Stephanie Laing
• LifeSite co-founder Crystal Lee
• U.S. House of Representatives candidate Mike Levin (D)
• Filmmaker Kamala Lopez
• IVP general partner Jules Maltz
• Musician Connie Lim
• Elka Cholo Re host Paphia Nandy
• Stanford University Professor David Palumbo-Liu
• Wildlife Conservation Network Director Rebecca Patton
• Clever Girls founder Stefania Pomponi
• Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Marlene Rabinovitch
• Writer Michaelene Risley
• Writer Arnold Rudnick
• Girls Who Code founder Reshma Saujani
• Asian Americans for Community Involvement co-founder Mary Chan Seid
• Filmmaker Jill Soloway
• Vanderbilt University Professor Ronnie Steinberg
• Actor Sharon Stone
• Poet Amber Tamblyn
• San Jose City Council candidate Omar Vasquez
• State University of New York at Old Westbury Professor Judith Walsh
• University of Southern California Professor Carol Wise
• Parenting magazine founder Robin Wolaner
• Women Donors Network member Wendy Wolf
• Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Sophia Yen
• Film producer Amy Ziering

Law professors

• Harvard Law School Professor Howard E. Abrams
• University of New Hampshire School of Law Professor Ann Bartow
• Stanford Law School Professor G. Marcus Cole
• Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Stephen F. Diamond
• Stanford Law School Professor Michele Landis Dauber
• Stanford Law School Professor Emeritus Ronald J. Gilson
• Stanford Law School Professor William H. Neukom
• University of Denver School of Law Professor Nancy Leong
• Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig
• Saint Louis University School of Law Professor Yvette Joy Liebesman
• Yale Law School Professor Tracey L. Meares
• Northwestern University Professor Laura Beth Nielsen
• Rutgers Law School Professor Sarah E. Ricks
• New York University Law School Professor Christopher Sprigman

Professor Michele Landis Dauber

Dauber was the leader of the recall campaign against Persky. She was a friend of the family of Turner's victim.

Dauber told The Guardian that Persky's ruling made women at Stanford and across California less safe. "The judge bent over backwards in order to make an exception... and the message to women and students is 'you’re on your own,' and the message to potential perpetrators is, 'I’ve got your back,'" she said.

Prameela Bartholomeusz

On May 2, Prameela Bartholomeusz, the co-chair of the committee to recall Persky, issued the following statement on the second-to-last judicial recall in California in 1913 and compared it to the Persky case:

“

In 1913, businessman Albert Hendricks was caught trying to assault two 17-year-old girls, but he skipped town after San Francisco Judge Charles Weller reduced his bail from $3,000 to $1,000. Local women’s clubs led the effort to recall Judge Weller for “extending undue and unreasonable leniency to persons charged with the commission of heinous and vicious offenses.” Weller’s was the first of only two successful judicial recalls in California’s history. Note that it did not lead to an onslaught of whimsical recalls, and it did not lead to substantial enough concerns about judicial independence for our constitutional right to recall judges to be revoked. It did, however, remove an elected official who had lost the faith of voters that he could fairly preside over sexual assault cases. In that same vein, I will be voting to recall Judge Aaron Persky on June 5. I encourage my neighbors to do the same.

”

Dolores Huerta

Dolores Huerta, the co-founder of United Farm Workers, was featured on a campaign mailer sent out by the recall campaign in May 2018.

Ultraviolet

The women's advocacy group Ultraviolet submitted a petition to remove Persky to the California Commission on Judicial Performance on June 10. The group also installed a digital billboard on the San Mateo Bridge that read "Protect Survivors, Not Rapists. Tell the California Commission on Judicial Performance that #PerskyMustGo."

Palo Alto Weekly

The Palo Alto Weekly editorial board wrote the following in support of Persky's recall on May 11, 2018.

Click [show] to see the editorial opinion

“ While the campaigns for and against the recall of Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky argue vociferously over each other's campaign tactics and the details of past sexual assault cases handled by Persky, the fundamental question for voters is how to strike the right balance between judicial independence and accountability to the community. Both are not only possible, but essential. Judge Persky and those opposing his recall argue that nothing short of illegal behavior, incompetence or gross misconduct should be cause for removing a judge. If done for any other reason, they believe, judges will be intimidated into imposing harsher sentences out of fear they too might be recalled. The fact that the California court system has had only two previous recall elections in its history, with the last one 86 years ago, strongly suggests otherwise. But more importantly, the California Constitution provides for this process and gives voters the absolute power to recall judges for any reason. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal judges lifetime appointments, the California Constitution requires that state judges stand for election every six years and allows for recall elections between regular elections upon submission of valid signatures of 20 percent of a county's registered voters, an extraordinarily high bar. It provides no guidance as to the standards for removal from office, leaving it to voters to make their own judgment. So challenges to the very legitimacy of this election are unfair, undemocratic and directly contradicted by the law. Those who don't like the recall provision have every right to seek a change in the Constitution, but they have no right to criticize those who are availing themselves of the legal opportunity to challenge the fitness of Judge Persky to remain on the bench. It is equally wrong to suggest that a recall election is anything other than an early vote on a judge that must stand for election anyway. Had Judge Persky coincidentally been on the ballot this year for re-election instead of four years from now, the campaign would have been no different except there would have been no burden of gathering almost 100,000 signatures nor any debate over the Constitutional recall provision. Similarly, we find the argument that appointment of judges by the Governor is more likely to insulate the judiciary from political influences than the election of judges to be disingenuous and irrelevant. First, Gubernatorial appointments are inherently and obviously political, and done entirely in secret. But more importantly, that is not the issue before voters. Instead, voters must decide whether or not Judge Persky's use of his discretionary sentencing powers in sexual assault cases has furthered the interests of justice and created an environment where victims of sexual assault will find the process fair and worthy of being re-traumatized during a trial. On this question, we believe Judge Persky has failed the community so badly that he must be replaced. A unanimous jury, after hearing all the evidence and testimony, convicted Stanford freshman swimmer Brock Turner in 2016 of three felonies for his sexual assault of an unconscious woman on the ground outside a Stanford fraternity. The Turner case was a rare instance of a sexual assault being witnessed and interrupted by uninvolved passersby. Two graduate students riding by on their bikes intervened, chased Turner as he attempted to flee and held him until police and paramedics arrived. Sexual assault cases rarely get any stronger than this one. Persky's six-month sentence of Turner, which resulted in Turner only actually serving three months due to the standard 50 percent reduction of time for "good behavior," undermined the jury verdict and stunned the nation for its leniency. It sent exactly the opposite message hoped for by the victim and those seeking to reduce the high incidence of sexual assault on college campuses. Under California law, the presumptive minimum sentence for Turner's convictions was two years unless the judge found, as did Judge Persky, unusual mitigating circumstances. The District Attorney asked for six years. But the probation department recommended just six months based on Turner's age, his lack of a significant criminal record (he had already been arrested earlier in his first quarter at Stanford for drinking) and on incorrect information about Turner's previous high school experience with drug and alcohol use (he asserted to the court his first use was at Stanford). We will never know the damage done by Judge Persky's minimal sentence of Brock Turner and how many future victims of sexual assault will choose not to press charges out of fear that a judge might similarly upend a jury verdict by imposing a diminutive sentence. But that threat is far more real and potentially dangerous to our judicial system than the remote possibility that the removal of Persky will strike fear in other judges and lead to inappropriately harsh sentences of convicted defendants. Judge Persky abused his discretion, disrespected a jury, failed a crime victim and broke trust with the public he serves. There is no judicial accountability if these failures don't lead to his removal from office. ”

Recall opponents

Persky's response

Persky filed his formal response to the recall on June 30, 2017. The response quotes former Judge LaDoris Cordell asking people not to sign the recall petition and notes that the judicial ethics commission investigated the Brock Turner sentence and found no bias. Below is an excerpt from Judge Persky's response:

“	Judge Persky is a former prosecutor and advocate for battered women. As a judge, he has made thousands of decisions. It’s unfair to recall him over one controversial decision. Judge Aaron Persky: 'As a prosecutor, I fought vigorously for victims. As a judge, my role is to consider both sides. California law requires every judge to consider rehabilitation and probation for first-time offenders. It’s not always popular, but it’s the law, and I took an oath to follow it without regard to public opinion or my opinions as a former prosecutor.'	”
—Judge Aaron Persky

May 8 press conference

Persky held a press conference on May 8 where he laid out his opposition to the recall. He said he had intended to remain silent about the recall but changed his mind after the pro-recall campaign began spreading what he called false claims about his record. He said judges should not have to think about public opinion when making decisions.

He also said the recall had negatively impacted his young children, who found negative flyers advocating his recall, and his wife, who he said was unsure which members of the community supported his recall and which did not.

Interview with Palo Alto Daily Post

Persky and two of his supporters, retired Palo Alto Judge LaDoris Cordell and Santa Clara University law professor Ellen Kreitzberg, spoke with the Palo Alto Daily Post on May 2. Persky said the recall campaign threatened the "sanctuary" of the courtroom by bringing in public opinion. Cordell and Kreitzberg said this issue was more important than in 1932, the last time a California judge was recalled, because of the rise of social media and special interest groups.

“What we’re seeing in this election and in elections that are taking place in the last couple of years is, if you can put together some funding, you can engage in a campaign that can put out… completely false information,” Kreitzberg said. “It is out there in the universe and you can’t ever retrieve it. So I think it’s much more dangerous in these days about how quickly misinformation can spread, how pervasive it can become.”

Persky added: “The people who need an independent judge are everybody who walks into a courtroom. The last thing that a litigant wants to worry about when they enter that courtroom and see that person up there in the black robe, which suggests complete neutrality, … ‘Is this judge even a little bit worried about what people think about what he or she is about to do? What social media thinks? How is it going to play on Facebook? How is it going to play on Twitter?”

Interview with Mercury News

Persky spoke to the editorial board of Mercury News on April 19, the first time he extensively discussed the recall. He said he supported efforts to change how sexual assault victims go through the criminal justice system, but that recalling him would not improve things.

He did not regret his sentencing of Turner, saying, " When the case came out and there’s the social media outrage, my personal opinion was that I can take the heat, I signed on to this job, I promised to essentially ignore public opinion.”

He also said that he was prevented from fully defending himself by ethics rules that prohibit him from discussing pending cases.

He worried about the implications of the recall, saying, “If the recall is successful, what does it mean for individual litigants? Is this judge going to be worried about what the Twitterverse thinks about what he or she does? The collateral damage here is to the individual future litigants and to public confidence in the judiciary.”

Comments by Persky attorney Jim McManis

On May 25, 2018, Persky's attorney, Jim McManis, told Vogue magazine that the victim in the Turner case had not been attacked and mentioned that she had been drinking before the incident took place.

McManis also said he had a report that the statement from the victim was “written by a professional battered women’s advocate from the YWCA.” He said he had not verified the report.

In response, Michele Dauber that McManis was “rank victim blaming,” and that the claim that the victim did not write her statement was “untrue and completely inappropriate.”

Members of Congress

U.S. Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D) and Anna Eshoo (D) released a joint statement in May 2018 where they endorsed Perky and argued that judges should not be influenced by political pressure.

Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office

Several defense attorneys from the Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office, including head Molly O'Neal, have spoken in support of Persky. "The sentence was totally fair, not out of line, given his [Turner's] lack of a criminal record," O'Neal said. She denounced threats made against Persky and said it was wrong to recall a judge based on one ruling. A group led by public defender Sajid A. Khan started a petition in support of Persky on Change.org.

Group of Stanford law graduates

Fifty-three of the 180 students in Stanford Law School's graduating class sent an open letter to Dauber expressing their disagreement with her effort to recall Persky. Below is an excerpt from the letter:

“

We have deep reservations about the idea of a judge — any judge — being fired over sentencing decisions that the public perceives as too lenient. As we’ve learned during our time at the law school, judicial independence is a cornerstone of due process and an essential prerequisite of a fair criminal justice system… After decades of mass incarceration driven by mandatory minimums and other punitive sentencing regimes, we believe that judicial leniency is already too scarce, even though we strongly disagree with how it was applied to Turner. And in a world where judges believe they are one unpopular sentencing decision away from an abrupt pink slip, it will only grow scarcer.

”

Group of retired judges

Eighteen retired Santa Clara Superior Court judges signed a letter opposing the recall effort. The letter did not indicate whether the former judges considered the sentence appropriate, but it said removing Persky from his position based on this ruling would threaten judicial independence. Below is an excerpt from the letter:

“

We acknowledge and respect the deeply held views of those who disagree with Judge Persky’s sentencing decision in the Turner case. At the same time, the full record in the case shows that Judge Persky made his decision after considering all the evidence presented at trial, the statements of the victim and the defendant, and a detailed report from an experienced probation officer.

”

Group of law professors

Forty-six law professors from California universities wrote a letter opposing the recall. They said that Persky had followed the advice of the probation report and that an independent review of his sentences did not reveal a pattern of bias. Below is an excerpt from the letter:

“

Rather than take on the difficult democratic work of seeking to change the law that confers sentencing discretion upon judges, or filing a complaint with the independent state agency charged with investigating and punishing judicial misconduct, the recall movement seeks to make Judge Persky and all other California judges fear the wrath of voters if they exercise their lawful discretion in favor of lenience. This poses a serious threat to the rule of law. Naked political pressure of this kind risks undermining the very foundation of dispassionate, independent judgment upon which all criminal convictions and sentences depend for their legitimacy.

”

San Francisco Chronicle

The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle opposed the recall in an editorial opinion published on February 9, 2018.

“

One of the most sacred principles of a system guided by rule of law is that the judiciary must be insulated from the dictates of authoritarian leaders or even the passions of the populace, no matter how intense or justified. Judges must retain the independence to follow the law without fear of losing their jobs... Again, we would not propose to defend a six-month sentence for a young man convicted of sexual assault on an intoxicated and unconscious woman behind a dumpster on campus. We, too, were moved by the account of the 23-year-old victim, known in court records as “Emily Doe,” who told Turner at sentencing: “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.” The furor over the verdict led California legislators to move quickly to toughen the sentencing laws on sex crimes, including an expansion of the definition of rape to include all forms of non-consensual assault, not just “an act of sexual intercourse.” Gov. Jerry Brown signed those bills in September 2016. This is the way the system should work. Don’t blame judges for following their discretion within the law. This recall effort is ill-advised and dangerous. Neither justice for defendants nor the concept of judicial independence is served if judges are guided by their anticipation of public reaction instead of the letter of the law.

”

Palo Alto Daily Post

After initially calling for Persky's removal from the office on June 6, 2016, over the Turner decision, the Palo Alto Daily Post came out against the recall on May 10, 2018.

Click [show] to see the editorial opinion

“ There’s more at stake in the recall election of Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky than the six-month jail sentence he gave to Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexual assault. The sentence was tremendously unpopular and disappointing. The victim’s moving statement focused national attention on the Turner sentence. It was posted online by BuzzFeed and it fueled a backlash that coincided with the burgeoning Me Too movement. The Post was the first newspaper to call for Persky’s removal from office. We said on June 6, 2016, that the six-month sentence diminished the seriousness of the offense, and we still believe that is true. A lynch-mob movement But we never anticipated that the campaign to remove Persky would result in a lynch-mob movement that threatens the independence of the judiciary. In deciding whether to recall Persky, a voter should ask two questions: Was the sentence within the law? If it was, then what should be done about it? When it came time to sentence Turner, Judge Persky received two recommendations. The prosecutor asked for six years in prison. But a female probation officer recommended six months, noting that Turner was a first-time offender and that he showed remorse. Persky accepted the probation officer’s recommendation, as judges often do. Persky also required Turner to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. This newspaper, expressing outrage over the six-month sentence, urged readers to file complaints against the judge with the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the agency that investigates judges for ethical violations. The commission was flooded with thousands of complaints. On Dec. 19, 2016, the commission, after reviewing the case, said Persky’s decision was within the “parameters set by law and was therefore within the judge’s discretion.” It found no evidence of bias in the judge’s conduct. That brings us to the second question — since the sentence was legal, what should be done about it? The most obvious answer is to change the law, and that’s exactly what happened. In September 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed two bills that will require longer sentences in state prison for defendants convicted of assaulting unconscious victims, ending the possibility of brief jail sentences like the one Turner received. The bills also expanded the definition of rape to include all forms of non-consensual assault, not just “an act of sexual intercourse.” For those who wanted reform, it’s happened. There won’t be another sentence like the one Brock Turner got. We’ve now changed our view about whether Persky ought to be recalled, and here’s why. Judicial independence We don’t want judges to be influenced by public opinion. We want judges to follow the law. We don’t want them to worry before they make a decision about what people will say about them on Twitter or Facebook. If Persky is recalled, other judges will start worrying that they’ll be next. They’ll conform their decisions to what they think the public wants, not what the law says. The crowd with the torches and pitchforks will win. While the Turner sentence was a grievous mistake, it would be an even greater mistake to give up the concept of an independent judiciary. For that reason, we ask you to vote “no” on the recall. ”

Debates

Several debates were held for supporters and opponents of the recall to argue their respective points of view. Summaries of debates are included in this section. It is not comprehensive.

April 25 debate

Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, a recall supporter, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school and a recall opponent, debated the recall at Stanford's law school.

Arguments made by Lemley

• Persky has made at least five decisions in favor of male athletes alleged to have committed acts of violence against women. “Persky has repeatedly favored privileged men, especially college athletes, over women of color,” he said. He said the bias could be due to Persky's background as a lacrosse player at Stanford.
• Only 64 Persky cases involved violence against women, making the five instances of bias more notable than if viewing all 2,000 Persky cases.
• Recalls are very rare and they are not likely to increase if the one against Persky is successful.
• Judges' behavior will not be affected by the recall because they will know that it was prompted by Persky's pattern of decision-making rather than just one decision.

Arguments made by Chemerinsky

• In the cases where Persky was alleged to show bias toward athletes accused of crimes against women, he always followed the probation department's recommendation.
• Citing five out of 2,000 Persky cases is not enough to prove systemic bias.
• Changing the laws governing sentencing is preferable to recalling judges.
• Judges should not be punished for following the recommendation of the district attorney and the probation department. If a district attorney thinks the sentence was lenient, they can appeal it.
• Recalling Persky will send a message to judges that they need to impose harsher sentences. This will primarily lead to harsher sentences for black and Latino men.

April 20 debate

Recall leader and Stanford Law professor Michele Dauber debated Santa Clara University law professor Ellen Kreitzberg, a recall opponent, at Hayes Street Grill in San Francisco.

Arguments made by Kreitzberg

• Judges swear an oath to disregard public opinion when making decisions. This recall is already causing judges to give out harsher sentences than they would have previously.
• Judges who engage in unethical conduct should be dealt with by the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance (which cleared Persky), not the recall process.

Responses by Dauber

• Those who think judges will be intimidated by the recall have “a dim view of judicial intelligence and judicial integrity.”
• The Commission on Judicial Performance's review of the Persky case was biased and only addressed one side of the issue.

April 18 debate

Recall leader and Stanford Law professor Michele Dauber was set to debate Palo Alto Judge LaDoris Cordell, a recall opponent, at an event hosted by the South Peninsula Area Republican Coalition. Dauber did not attend and sent Stanford professor G. Marcus Cole in her place.

Arguments made by Cordell

• Attempts to show that Persky had a history of giving lenient sentences was limited. He said, “In their desperate attempt to paint a picture of Judge Persky as a biased judge and overall bad person, and after combing through thousands of records, the recall campaign came up with five cases. Think about it, five cases out of 2,000. That’s 0.25%, or one-quarter of 1%, of Judge Persky’s cases. Common sense tells you that’s not a pattern.”
• The Turner case was the first time Persky was accused of bias. He is married to a woman of color and has two biracial children. He previously received awards for his pro bono work and addressed hate crimes, sex crimes, and domestic violence as a prosecutor.
• If proponents want to remove Persky, they could run against him in his next election. A recall is inappropriate and intended to address misconduct, not controversial decisions.

Arguments made by Cole

• Superior court judges are more powerful than lifetime appointed judges due to their six-year terms and, because of this, judicial independence and judicial accountability should be balanced. He said, “This is why California law and the California Constitution, as well as 26 other states, balance judicial independence with judicial accountability. The sweeping powers of state court judges requires that they be exercised with the public trust. That trust was breached by Judge Persky in the Brock Turner case.”
• During the 18 months Persky heard cases at the Palo Alto courthouse, he gave lenient sentences to persons convicted of child pornography and domestic violence charges. He also allowed jury members in a rape case to see revealing pictures of the victim, suggesting that the victim invited the assault.
• Public outrage against Persky is high enough to justify the recall. His presence in the office might discourage sexual assault victims from coming forward.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing recall in California

According to Section 14 of Article II of the California Constitution, petitioners must submit signatures equal to 20 percent of the votes cast for a judge in the last election to qualify a judicial recall for the ballot. For county superior court judges who did not appear on the ballot in the last election, such as Persky, the requirement is signatures equal to 20 percent of the votes cast for the countywide office that received the least number of votes in the last election. Recall supporters had to collect 58,634 valid signatures in a 160-day period to get the Persky recall on the ballot.

On June 26, 2017, recall proponents filed a notice of intent to recall Persky. The recall was authorized for signature gathering by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters on August 9, 2017.

Two days later, retired Superior Court Judge Marjorie Laird Carter approved Persky's request for a temporary restraining order against the recall. Persky argued that the recall should have gone through the state secretary of state rather than the county office because he was a state official. Carter scheduled a hearing for August 23, 2017, and recall proponents were barred from collecting signatures in the meantime. If the judge had ruled in favor of Persky's argument, the recall application would have had to be refiled with the secretary of state.

The recall campaign moved to disqualify Carter from the case. "Unfortunately, the fact that Judge Carter would issue a prior restraint of protected First Amendment speech without any finding of a compelling government interest, and indeed without even letting us discuss the question, demonstrates that she does not have a sufficient appreciation for or does not fully understand the important First Amendment issues at stake in this case," Dauber said in requesting Carter's disqualification.

Retired Judge Kay Tsenin took over the case, and the hearing was postponed until August 28, 2017. Tsenin ruled in favor of the recall campaign, lifting the restraining order. Persky appealed, but the California Sixth District Court of Appeal rejected his request to end the recall process.

On January 11, 2018, the recall campaign submitted signatures to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. They reported collecting 95,000 signatures. The county registrar of voters announced on January 23, 2018, that it had verified a sufficient number of signatures to place the recall on the June 5 ballot. On February 6, 2018, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors officially approved the recall election for the ballot.

State overview

Partisan control

This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in California heading into the 2018 elections.

Congressional delegation

• Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in California.
• Democrats held 39 of 53 U.S. House seats in California.

State executives

• As of May 2018, Democrats held seven of 10 state executive positions and the remaining three positions were officially nonpartisan.
• The governor of California was Democrat Jerry Brown.

State legislature

• Democrats controlled both chambers of the California State Legislature. They had a 55-25 majority in the state Assembly and a 27-13 majority in the state Senate.

Trifecta status

• California was a state government trifecta, meaning that Democrats held the governorship and majorities in the state house and state senate.

2018 elections

See also: California elections, 2018

California held elections for the following positions in 2018:

• 1 Senate seat
• 53 U.S. House seats
• Governor
• Seven other state executive positions
• 20 of 40 state Senate seats
• 80 state Assembly seats
• Two state Supreme Court justices
• 35 state Court of Appeals judges
• Local trial court judges
• School board members

Demographics

Demographic data for California
	California	U.S.
Total population:	38,993,940	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	155,779	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	61.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.9%	12.6%
Asian:	13.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.7%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31.4%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,818	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

As of July 2016, California had a population of approximately 39,000,000 people, with its three largest cities being Los Angeles (pop. est. 4.0 million), San Diego (pop. est. 1.4 million), and San Jose (pop. est. 1 million).

State election history

This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in California from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the California Secretary of State.

Historical elections

Presidential elections, 2000-2016

This chart shows the results of the presidential election in California every year from 2000 to 2016.

Election results (President of the United States), California 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2016	Hillary Clinton	61.7%	Donald Trump	31.6%	30.1%
2012	Barack Obama	60.2%	Mitt Romney	37.1%	23.1%
2008	Barack Obama	61.1%	John McCain	37%	24.1%
2004	John Kerry	54.4%	George W. Bush	44.4%	10%
2000	Al Gore	53.5%	George W. Bush	41.7%	11.8%

U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016

This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in California from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.

Election results (U.S. Senator), California 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2016	Kamala Harris	61.6%	Loretta Sanchez	38.4%	23.2%
2012	Dianne Feinstein	62.5%	Elizabeth Emken	37.5%	25%
2010	Barbara Boxer	52.2%	Carly Fiorina	42.2%	10%
2006	Dianne Feinstein	59.5%	Richard Mountjoy	35.1%	24.4%
2004	Barbara Boxer	57.8%	Bill Jones	37.8%	20%
2000	Dianne Feinstein	55.9%	Tom Campbell	36.6%	19.3%

Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016

This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in California.

Election results (Governor), California 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2014	Jerry Brown	60%	Neel Kashkari	40%	20%
2010	Jerry Brown	53.8%	Meg Whitman	40.9%	12.9%
2006	Arnold Schwarzenegger	55.9%	Phil Angelides	39.0%	16.9%
2002	Gray Davis	47.3%	Bill Simon	42.4%	4.9%

Congressional delegation, 2000-2016

This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent California in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.

Congressional delegation, California 2000-2016
Year	Democrats	Democrats (%)	Republicans	Republicans (%)	Balance of power
2016	39	73.5%	14	26.4%	D+25
2014	39	73.5%	14	26.4%	D+25
2012	38	71.7%	15	28.3%	D+23
2010	34	64.1%	19	35.8%	D+15
2008	34	64.1%	19	35.8%	D+15
2006	34	64.1%	19	35.8%	D+15
2004	33	62.3%	20	37.7%	D+13
2002	33	62.3%	20	37.7%	D+13
2000	32	61.5%	20	38.5%	D+12

Trifectas, 1992-2017

A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

California Party Control: 1992-2024
Nineteen years of Democratic trifectas  •  No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.

Year	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24
Governor	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Senate	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Assembly	D	D	D	S	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D

See also

Suggest a link

• Recall campaigns in California
• Special district recalls
• Political recall efforts, 2017
• Political recall efforts, 2018

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
• Recall Judge Aaron Persky website
• Retain Judge Persky—No Recall website
• Change.org, "Remove Judge Aaron Persky from the Bench For Decision in Brock Turner rape case"
• Change.org, "A Letter in Support of Judge Aaron Persky and Judicial Discretion"

Additional reading

• Victim impact statement
• Letter to the judge by the father of Brock Turner