Even before this week, Yolo County’s bench seemed out of step with the rest of the state. For the last 13 years, according to various media sources, California’s bench has become more diverse—more women, more people of color. Not Yolo County.
Yolo County is moving in the opposite direction with 8 white men and two women, one of whom is Latina. That was before Tuesday when Governor Newsom made what appears to be the latest appointment based on political connections.
Dan Wolk as you know is the former Mayor of Davis, having served from 2014 to 2016. In both 2014 and 2016, he ran for State Assembly and lost, first to Bill Dodd and then to Cecilia Aguiar-Curry. His professional experience is a little over a decade working for the Solano County Counsel’s office.
He has limited trial experience and his chief qualifications appear to be the fact that his mother is a retired State Senator and his father is a retired Dean of the UC Davis Law School.
Dan Wolk appears to be the latest Yolo County appointment that is based more on who someone is than their qualifications to be judge. That’s not fair to Dan Wolk and this issue did not begin with Governor Gavin Newsom—it is a trend.
And it is a problem for the diversity on the Yolo County bench, which now has 9 white men in a county where whites only make up 46 percent of the total population, according to 2019 census estimates.
Indeed, if you look at Governor Newsom’s judicial appointments overall on Tuesday, people wanting diversity would applaud them.
In March of 2019 after Governor Jerry Brown stepped down, a survey found that for the 13th straight year, California’s judicial bench has grown more diverse, according to new data released by the Judicial Council.
Governor Brown’s appointments, including the nearly 200 appointments made in his final year in office: women accounted for more than half of those appointees, and 41 percent identified as non-white.
Governor Newsom continued that trend as last year, his first, he appointed a majority of women and nonwhites to the bench.
That continued on Tuesday. Governor Newsom appointed 14 people to the bench—8 women and just two white males.
So why is Yolo County different than other counties?
A big part has to do with its location, roughly 15 minutes from the State Capitol on the other side of the Sacramento River.
It is a small county, but it is prominent—the home of UC Davis, a major law school and academic center. Davis also happens to be the home of a number of State Capitol employees and staffers.
The problem here is actually very clear, and it goes back to the last six governor appointments to the bench starting in 2008.
In 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed employment lawyer Samuel McAdam. In 2010, he appointed Dan Maguire, who was his deputy legal affairs secretary.
In 2012, Janene Beronio, one of the two women on the bench, was elected when retiring Judge Stephen Mock stepped down at the end of his term.
In 2015, Governor Brown appointed Sonia Cortés, the first Latina to be judge in Yolo County.
In 2018, he appointed Tom Dyer and Peter Williams, both of whom were attorneys in his administration.
Now, in 2020, Governor Newsom appoints Dan Wolk, the former Mayor of Davis and the son of State Senator Lois Wolk.
While the 2018 appointees did not live in Yolo County, Sam McAdam, Dan Maguire, and Dan Wolk all live in Davis and Sonia Cortés lived in Woodland.
A key question is why has Yolo County become the place where governors stick their legal counsel when they wish to award them with appointments?
Clearly, being near the capital is to Yolo County’s detriment. Clearly Yolo County lacks a deep bar association that is diverse. But we also know for a fact that there were very qualified women and women of color who have put their hats in the ring and got passed over in the last three appointments.
Is no one at the governor’s office paying attention to the bench in Yolo for ethnic make up?
One thing that has shifted in the last three appointments—the partisan make up of the bench. For a long time, not only was the bench white and male, but it was also disproportionately Republican. This is a heavily Democratic County, as two-thirds of the voters in 2016 voted for Hillary Clinton.
Now five of the 11 judges were appointed by Democrats—Dave Rosenberg by Gray Davis in 2003, and the three most recent appointments by Jerry Brown with Dan Wolk by Gavin Newsom.
This isn’t about whether or not Dan Wolk will be a good judge; he will be a judge, and hopefully he does well. This really isn’t about him. It is about the process. The fact is that governors in recent years have done a good job of creating a much more diverse bench in California, and my only complaint is that when it comes to Yolo County, we have been shortchanged.
Nine white male judges in this era with 10 years of Democratic governors should not happen.
With all due respect to the last three appointments, Yolo County deserves better than to get a rash of political appointments with little regard to the overall lack of diversity of its bench.
Contrast that to San Francisco which in March elected three progressive women to its bench. It is hard to imagine two more different judicial environments, and given the notion of equal justice under the law and the fact that the vast majority of criminal defendants in Yolo County are black and brown—a disproportionate number, mind you—it would seem that a bench more reflective of the population demographics would be fairer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Yeah – probably should “make sure” that they’re Democrats, as well. But, no “quota system”, here!
Reminds me of those who support Linda Deos because of her gender. What an embarrassing “criteria” to publicly acknowledge.
It’s racist, sexist, and discriminatory to prevent employment based upon personal characteristics over which one has no control.
But, at least someone could “switch political parties”, to meet one of David’s suggested criteria.
Actually, one can also switch their gender, I suppose.
Maybe it depends upon how desperately one wants a job?
For background – one of my ongoing narratives on the bench in Yolo is not only has it skewed white male, but for years it has been far more conservative than either the state or the county’s political leanings. That part has closed in the last four appointments. The gender and racial make up however has moved in the other direction.
I understand the reasoning behind your advocacy, but it inevitably leads to outright discrimination (beyond judicial appointments, as well).
Ironically, it’s also racist and sexist.
You’re right me pointing out that we have a bench that is 81% male and over 90% white is racist and sexist. Good call.
And as far as political persuasion, one wonders if future potential candidates might attempt to hide that, from public view.
It’s unfortunate if that’s (also) used as a criteria to bar some candidates. What a chilling effect that would have (e.g., on political blogs or elsewhere). So much for personal freedom of expression.
But, at least everyone would be on the “same page” in a given community. 😉
(Again, as it inevitably spreads beyond judicial appointments, as well.)
Really? The number of gender and racial make up have declined over the last four appointments?
Please elaborate… am open to that being shown true. But, need data…
In 2017 there were 6 men and 4 women on the bench in Yolo. Now there are 9 men and 2 women.
See previous comment about self-editing comments… had 1:30 on the ‘shot-clock’…
I wrote, as I recall, that if you can not show/explain, a decline, will, regretfully, have to agree with Ron O…
Not sure what you are asking but as I explained, the number of women has decline to 2 out of 11 was 4 out of 10 and the number of nonwhites is now 1 out of 11
Ron
In principle, I agree with you that jobs should not be decided on the basis of inalterable personal characteristics. However, in practice until recent decades, that is exactly how positions and advancements were doled out, only predominately to white males. So how would you recommend proceeding to build a more equitable system than by first acknowledging the historic and existing disparities…which in many fields still exist though to a lesser degree?
It would be racist and sexist if being “white and male” was a criteria these days.
One would have to look at the pool of candidates, to see what’s occurring.
Your implication (in the article) that it’s based upon political connections is disturbing, and had crossed my mind. (And of course, those with such connections have historically been primarily white and male.)
I simply don’t support quotas to “make up” for historical discrimination patterns – even those which have an impact to this day.
As a side note, the implied political connection (in this case) has to do with a “female” (his mother). Does that make it “better”?
Now, if you want to say that the makeup of the pool of best-qualified candidates is disproportionately white (due to historical discrimination), that would mirror the concern regarding limiting residency in a particular development to those with a “connection” to Davis. (Which you were unconcerned with.)
And is the case of judicial appointments, it’s apparently “not limited” to those who live in the county. So on its surface, it doesn’t have that same problem.
Diversity goals are not synonymous with quotas. Diversity goals reflect an underlying value, or strategic vision, that, in this case, the judiciary should strive to reflect the demographic characteristics of the population to he served. They involve the establishment of targets, or aspirational goals, that are flexible and that aren’t required to be achieved. Quotas, on the other hand, are mandated outcomes that must be achieved.
Diversity goals require a strategy along with targets to measure progress. Selection criteria should not be based on criteria that entail unconscious biases, such as having “political connections.”
Falsely equating diversity goals with quotas is a sure way of guaranteeing that the goal of a diverse judiciary will not be achieved.
I’m not sure that political connections are “unconscious biases”.
In any case, how does one have a “diversity goal” without ultimately measuring it via numbers (quotas)?
Also , how does one achieve such goals without engaging in discrimination (e.g., not hiring someone because of their “undesirable” skin color or gender)?
Bottom line is that if skin color or gender (for example) are a “criteria”, you will (by definition) be engaging in discrimination.
You know why they created affirmative action originally? What happened is they ended de jure discrimination and then courts and other entities would look at hiring practices and find that companies were still mainly hiring whites, and when they inquired they said, I couldn’t find any qualified black people. The idea behind Affirmative Action was to force employers to look at more diverse workplaces.
Personally, I have found it pretty easy to hire and recruit diverse teams of people to serve on my board or to work for the Vanguard. I don’t have an actual number in mind, I simply look for strong people who are of different backgrounds to fill out my team.
In this case, you have to look at the current make up of the bench and adjust. The other problem here – you might be able to defend appointing someone who is really really qualified and say, you got the best possible person regardless of gender or race. Where that falls apart is that at least with the last three, I don’t think you can claim that. They were appointed based on who they were, not what their qualifications were.
That would require engaging in discrimination.
I’m not claiming that, as I don’t know anything about who the others were (or their qualifications). I’m more concerned about the potential “political connections”, in this case. (Again, based upon the political connections of a “female” in this case – for what that’s worth in these arguments.)
There is no reason you can’t look for the best qualified woman when you have just two women on the bench in Yolo County. There is nothing illegal about it. Again, you keep wanting to dodge the fact that not only did he pick another white male for the judgeship, but he picked one who lacked a lot of the experience of other candidates.
“Look for” implies discrimination.
Not if discrimination is legal.
Not “dodging” anything. If true, then I’d be concerned about the potential political connections.
The alleged political connection has to do with a female, which seems particularly ironic given your arguments.
Regardless it seems like you are fine with the last three appointments: two legal advisers to the previous governor and the son of a state senator, but not okay with selecting a woman or person of color that would provide more balance to the current bench.
I’m not sure how you’re reading that into my comments.
I don’t follow this as closely as you, nor am I “keeping score” regarding skin color, gender, disability status, age, LGBT, etc., of the candidates).
Actually, it seems that you aren’t all that concerned regarding some of these “categories”. Truth be told, there’s discrimination all around us.
Some apparently just want to make that “legal”.
Because the whole point of this piece was that there is a huge imbalance on the bench, the reason there is that imbalance has been a number of very political appointments and you’ve responded to this article which lays all of this out arguing in effect, it’s okay to make these kinds of appointments and you can’t appoint a woman with that goal in mind because that’s discrimination. That’s where we are in this discussion.
You are ignoring the definitions of quotas vs. diversity goals. All hiring decisions “discriminate” among applicants. There’s nothing illegal about taking diversity into account when selecting among otherwise qualified applicants.
Again, the political connection in this case is based upon a female’s political connection. Given your arguments, wouldn’t that make this situation more “palatable”, to you?
On a broader level – given the “goal” (diversity – to make up for past discrimination), it seems that you’re advocating for (legal) discrimination.
Another word for that is “discrimination”, based upon a factor such as skin color or gender, for example.
Not all discrimination is illegal. Hiring decisions based on a justifiable affirmative action, or diversity, plan is not unlawful.
It’s still discrimination. I’ll defer to you, regarding legality. Nor do I know how that works regarding Asians, for example. (Or the broad range of “Asians”.)
Nor do I know how that works, regarding gender. (Last I heard, females make up the majority of college attendees.)
Also, how does one account for “smaller” groups, in that (e.g., disability status, LGBT, etc? Or, age – which is a larger group?)
So if I’m hearing you right, you are saying that the appoint of “Wolk”, was not very “woke”.
“Dan Wolk appears to be the latest Yolo County appointment that is based more on who someone is than their qualifications to be judge.”
John Marshall is widely revered as “the great Chief Justice,” but before joining the Supreme Court in 1801 he had never served a day in judicial robes and lost the only case he argued at the high court. Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas, and Louis Brandeis were all lawyers with no judicial experience at the time of their nominations.
” Governor Newsom appointed 14 people to the bench—8 women and just two white males…The fact is that governors in recent years have done a good job of creating a much more diverse bench in California, and my only complaint is that when it comes to Yolo County, we have been shortchanged.
Nine white male judges in this era with 10 years of Democratic governors should not happen.”
So he should have appointed more minority women? When you get elected, you can do that. This sounds like another one of your “I don’t think it’s perfect so pillory the presiding authority.” rants. Look at the demographics of your county and get back to us.Gee Zeus some of you Davistes are an entitled and mutinous bunch.
“and the son of State Senator Lois Wolk.”
And that is a negative? This is still the USA, even in Davisville, where I thought one’s genetics were not related to one’s own reputation and accomplishments, good or bad.
“This isn’t about whether or not Dan Wolk will be a good judge; he will be a judge, and hopefully he does well. This really isn’t about him.”
Sure, David, like when we tell you that have no qualifications as editor/publisher and your blog is sloppily written, it’s not about you, but the process. Feel better about it now?
Abe Fortas and Louis Brandeis were considered top lawyers in their field at the time of their nomination. You aren’t going to be able to appoint a superior court judge who has judicial experience, you can pick one with trial and legal experience however.
Talk about a sloppily written sentence:
But that doesn’t stop John Hobbs from reading and commenting on this blog almost everyday.
Abe Fortis, Lois Brandeis and Dan Wolk. A trio of great jurists, no doubt!
Congratulations Dan. May you serve with justice and mercy in your heart.
“This isn’t about whether or not Dan Wolk will be a good judge; he will be a judge, and hopefully he does well. This really isn’t about him.”
Then why take the cheap shots?
One good cheap shot deserves another:
“This isn’t about whether or not David Greenwald is a good blogger; he is a blogger.”
I don’t agree with David probably about 80% of the time, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a good blogger. He must have a good blog to keep people like me and thousands of others interested. I was reading his blog daily even when I wasn’t commenting. I think what makes David’s blog better than most is David’s willingness to engage his commenters. So when someone comments how sh*tty his blog is, hey look in the mirror, you’re on here reading and commenting on it.
Like I said, he’s a blogger.