The SDCBA’s 2012 Judicial Candidate Ratings are as follows:
Robert Amador Well Qualified
David Berry Qualified -won over Roberts
Gary Kreep Lacking Qualifications currently ahead of Peed
James Miller, Jr. Lacking Qualifications beat Amador and Schaefer
Garland Peed Well Qualified
Terrie Roberts Well Qualified
George Schaefer Well Qualified

It appears the candidate rated least qualified got the most votes in each race.

No wonder California allows you a free peremptory challenge to judges, when they apparently make a habit of electing imbeciles.

I can think of no better argument for outlawing the "election" of "judges" than this election of a raving lunatic, unqualified to be a piss-boy, to the bench.

What a squalid affair.

I know between elections a lot of harm can be done by an incompetent judge and. unfortunately, despite that, some will be re-elected, but... do any of your states have a provision such as the following?

I do know it's worked in at least some instances to rid the bench of buffoons... not perfect [she's horrible] but better than nothing IMO.

Supreme Court of NM JPEC (Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission

I am so opposed to the very idea of electing judges that I "veto" any such provision by automatically voting to retain any judge, even a judge I personally despise or know to be incompetent. While I might make an exception for Gary Kreep, I am lucky enough not to be in an area imbecilic enough to put a Kreep on the bench.

We have judicial elections here in Georgia, but since the Governor appoints a replacement if a judge leaves the bench mid-term, virtually every judge steps down mid-term. It's relatively rare for there to be a race for an open seat, and it's even rarer for the open seat to be on the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

Then, of course, when election day rolls around, the incumbent judge inevitably wins reelection. Most of the time, the incumbents don't even have serious challengers.

So despite having a judicial election scheme, most of the time it still functionally operates as an appointment system.

Gonna have to rethink retiring to San Diego.

How are the appointments made? I prefer the system where the Bar provides the governor a list of qualified candidates and the governor makes his pick from that list.

Similarly, San Diego just got crossed off our list for a holiday destination.

For purposes of comparison, Los Angeles County Bar Association did a little better in electing the higher rated judges. However, what do you do when both candidates are rated "not qualified" as in Office #38?

http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=13863

It works kinda like that. The Bar itself isn't the advisor, but there's the Judicial Nominating Committee that takes applications and makes recommendations to the Governor:

http://jnc.georgia.gov

Former San Diego mayor, ex-con (and current Rush Limbaugh substitute) Roger Hedgecock

Former Rep. Duncan Hunter

Current Rep. Duncan Hunter

Former Rep. Duke Cunningham

Current Rep. Darrell Issa

Tom Metzger

Heaven's Gate

Unarius

Don't assume that the city of San Diego, or San Diego county for that matter, are anything close to sane. (Speaking as a former resident there)

That link's rotted : anyone snag a copy?

I found a press release from the SDBA with the ratings for the judges:

https://www.sdcba.org/temp/ts_F18DFE66- ... 0Final.pdf

Also, I found this article on their website which pertains to the question of ratings and what influences voters choices of judges. The RWNJ's in San Diego have been on a campaign to elect conservative RWNJ judges regardless of qualifications.

https://www.sdcba.org/temp/ts_F18944A6- ... Voters.pdf

With 4,000 left to count, Judge Kreep is up by over a thousand votes.

And here we thought absentee voters were better educated.

Kreep has won -- latest returns here:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/voters/resul ... _court.xsl

Kreep now has a 1,088 vote lead with only 4,000 votes left to count. Statistically very unlikely that Peed would make that up - he'd need to have roughly 78% of the remaining votes to pull it off.

I think it's fairly certain that there will be a recount. Given the results in the other races, however, it's likely that Kreep has pulled it off. The right wing Republicans or tea party interests in San Diego probably did a good job of distributing slate cards with their endorsements & reached a lot of conservative voters in a low turnout election.

As noted by others, Kreep will have to give up his private law practice to take the bench & will be disqualified from hearing any case where he has a clear conflict of interest. And birther or not, he absolutely detests Orly Taitz. So I don't think we'll be seeing any birther cases coming out of San Diego Superior Court.

Actually, I always thought that Kreep was the smartest of the lot of birther lawyers, and knew full well all along exactly what he was doing. I think the game he was playing was fundraising, not litigating -- I think he has known all along that the birther cases were going nowhere other than to provide him with a vehicle for raising his own profile & $$. So I don't know that we are going to be hearing of any craziness out of San Diego on drunk driving cases & evictions. He'll trend conservative, but I am guessing that most of the bench down there also trends conservative. So it might not make much of a difference to the typical litigant.

What a great judge he will make.


http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/ ... d-payment/


After all, after his foundation (i.e. KREEP) was sanctioned, he negotiated it down.

Frivolous lawsuits. bah.

He's gonna be a judge now.

Shows he is willing to compromise.

Since a big part of his job will be handling settlement conferences, maybe he'll manage o.k.

On the civil end, if I was representing a plaintiff, I wouldn't mind being in front of a settlement judge who thinks 70 cents on the dollar is a good deal for the defense.

It's not all bad. Orly will stew and stew over this the whole rest of her life

Yeah. And Kreep was invited on the cruise too. Also.

It'll keep him off the birther circuit.

Agreed! I admit that it ignores the concerns of San Diego residents/litigants, but I think it's perfectly marvelous that Gary Kreep will probably win this race (sorry, Peed, I don't know you, and I don't care to know you, so it doesn't matter to me).

The bottom line is that Kreep's a winner and Oily is not. It's just a bonus that Kreep will now be unable to play birfer/abortion/whatever RWNJ causes/games. He'll be hearing traffic and small claims cases. And hey, I feel bad for the litigants who appear before him (simply because I believe he is incompetent). But I'll be honest about it and say that, on balance, I'm tickled.

It's a shot to Oily...a gift that will keep on giving. He'll never hear a birfer case; he'll never hear an abortion case. He'll be relegated to the least of cases, and he'll probably do fine.

And I'm assuming (but would appreciate some confirmation from California-based attorneys) that he/USJF (?) are, essentially, shut down. If true, great. Fine. Kreep is far less potentially damaging on the bench than off it. Kewl.

He was the one who was sanctioned. He talked them down. How is that compromising?


Kreep does okay.



more here:
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/blog ... egist.html

So, in the Garden State, upper-level judges aren't allowed to collect any salary other than what they earn as judges. They are also not allowed to run companies or sit on boards of directors, I believe. Do California judges have the same restrictions?

Actually, he only needs about 64% of the remaining vote. Not that it really matters, but I just gotta be a math weenie...