California Police Union Campaigns Against Justice Kelli Evans

California's largest law enforcement union, the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), has launched a digital campaign urging voters to reject California Supreme Court Justice Kelli Evans in her retention election for a 12-year term, according to CalMatters reporting published by The Almanac and Mountain View Voice.

Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Evans to the state's highest court in 2022. Before joining the California Supreme Court, Evans served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court, chief deputy legal affairs secretary to Newsom, special assistant to the California attorney general, and senior director at the State Bar of California.

Under the California Constitution, appellate and Supreme Court justices do not receive lifetime appointments; after being vetted by the State Bar and statewide officials including the attorney general, they must stand in nonpartisan retention elections in which voters decide whether to keep them in office.

PORAC's "Warning Shot" and Criminal Justice Laws

PORAC leaders acknowledge that their digital campaign is unlikely to persuade enough voters to oust Evans, who declined to comment on the union's advertisements. Instead, PORAC Vice President Ben Therriault said the union aims to put the judiciary on notice regarding how judges interpret laws adopted under Newsom and former Gov. Jerry Brown that expand opportunities for parole and sentence review.

"This is a warning shot that, hey, we're paying attention," Therriault said, adding that from the union's perspective, several justices are out of step with voters who two years ago approved Proposition 36 to increase criminal penalties for certain theft and drug offenses.

PORAC's campaign website draws on data compiled last year by the legal blog At the Lectern, which tracks the California Supreme Court and reported that Evans and Justice Goodwin Liu dissented dozens of times when a majority of the court declined to review criminal cases. Criminal appeals have also reached the court more frequently under the California Racial Justice Act, which permits defendants to challenge convictions or sentences if they can show racial bias affected their proceedings.

Legal Scholars and the 1986 Retention Precedent

Legal scholars criticized the union's effort as a threat to judicial independence and impartiality.

• Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law: Said the PORAC campaign has gained neither traction nor public attention and that there is no reason to believe it will affect the outcome of the retention vote.
• Mary-Beth Moylan, Associate Dean at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law: Said campaigning against sitting justices over their legal interpretations sets a dangerous precedent that she hopes does not expand, noting that many voters skip judicial ballot questions because judges generally do not run political campaigns.

Only once in California history — 40 years ago in the 1986 general election — have voters removed sitting California Supreme Court justices in a retention vote. In that 1986 election, business groups angered by rulings against employers and Republican Gov. George Deukmejian campaigned against Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin, all 3 of whom had been appointed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. All 3 justices lost their seats in 1986, allowing Deukmejian to appoint their replacements.