The electorate is coming for bad judges
2022 was the opening salvo, but I expect a lot more in 2024.
In the last six weeks, Wayne Dolcefino featured a series of news reports on soft on crime judges which he urged his viewers to vote against in the November election.
On Facebook, one report got over 250,000 views.
Dolcefino featured seven judges from Harris County, Texas in his report: Judges Chris Morton, DaSean Jones, Lori Chambers Gray, Frank Aguilar, Danilo Locayo, Josh Hill, and Hilary Hill.
All were soft on crime, primarily for giving small or own recognizance bonds for violent offenders in significant numbers.
Only one, however, of the judges featured lost in the election this previous Tuesday, Judge DaSean Jones.
Dolcefino was not the only journalist to feature Jones; Randy Wallace of Fox 26 in Houston made Jones one of six judges up for election who were “the most in Breaking Bond reports.”
The six judges we've reported on the most that are up for re-election are 230th Judge Chris Morton, 262nd Judge Lori Chambers Gray, 180th Judge DaSean Jones, 248th Judge Hilary Unger, 232nd Judge Josh Hill, and 228th Judge Frank Aguilar,
They all have released at least six repeat violent offenders on multiple felony bonds, who've gone on to become murder suspects.
"I have been practicing criminal law for 16 years. I started out in the DA's Office and left in 2009 to start my own criminal practice," said attorney Tonya McLaughlin.
Judges enjoy protection which makes many believe they are untouchable.
Each state has a judicial oversight board which is supposed to hold bad behavior by judges accountable, but as I have reported since at least 2018, all of those are almost entirely feckless.
Annual reports of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (NYSCJC) and the Florida Judicial Qualification Commission (JQC) show both take action in less than two percent of complaints received.
California’s Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) gets more than 1,000 complaints every year but publicly disciplines fewer than 10 judges; the CJP received so many complaints both from litigants and judges that California’s legislature ordered the CJP audited in 2016.
Besides that, judges can be elected, appointed, and renominated, in opaque processes which favor connected insiders.
In Connecticut, as an example, they are nominated by the governor and voted on by the legislature.
I interviewed Connecticut Democrat State Representative Minnie Gonzalez, who has been trying to expose bad judges for a decade, and even with her support, most corrupt judges still sailed through.
Gonzalez disagrees: “I was able to get rid of a couple judges,” she said.
One too many she believes before the judiciary put pressure and she was removed from the committee.
Gonzalez said the main problem with the system is conflict of interest.
Members of the Judiciary Committee often want to be appointed judges; some are angling to head the committee.
Others work in the court system; in Connecticut, state legislators are part-time and many are lawyers while some work as GALs.
Furthermore, judges wield a lot of power, one colleague, she said told her, “you’re fighting against the big boys,” referring to judges.
In other cases, judges are either voted up or down for renomination, a near rubber stamp process.
In yet other cases, judges appear to be elected when they are really nominated in a corrupt process. That’s what I discovered in Minnesota.
“All judges shall be subject to statewide election, whether they serve in at-large or congressional district seats,” the Minnesota constitution proclaims.
This mandate is in name only. In reality, judges routinely retire early; then, the Minnesota governor picks a replacement.
That judge will run for election eventually, but almost all judges run unopposed.
Times are changing and I think bad judges should start being afraid of the electorate.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Michael Volpe Investigates to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.