CALIFORNIA — SB 1369 would reshape California’s recall petition process by increasing transparency requirements and shortening timelines for judicial recalls, raising questions about whether judges should be insulated from political pressure or whether the public’s ability to hold judges accountable would be limited.
SB 1369 requires paid petition circulators to verbally disclose that they are being paid. It also includes transparency measures involving the number of required signatures and sets an 80-day signature-gathering limit as a standard across jurisdictions.
Supporters argue the regulation protects judges from being targeted simply because members of the public disagree with their decisions.
At the same time, California’s recall system exists to allow voters to remove corrupt public officials from office. Concerns have emerged over whether the process is being used to politically target judges rather than address actual misconduct.
“The judge is a distinct role that one holds in our democracy,” the bill author states. “When recall efforts are driven by disagreement with case outcomes, rather than ethical misconduct, they raise serious concerns about attempts to influence judicial decision-making through political pressure instead of the established appellate process.”
Even so, supporters of reform contend gaps remain in the current system that leave voters without the information necessary to make informed decisions.
Even with requirements for paid signature collectors, “the recall petitions may lack sufficient accountability regarding the stated reasons for the recall,” the bill author stated.
Backers of the 80-day gathering period say the measure would help ensure judges can decide cases based on the law and evidence rather than from “fear of organized political retaliation.”
In support of the bill, advocates argue that “judicial recall petitions are exceedingly uncommon and assert that this reflects the long-standing recognition that the judiciary plays a distinct constitutional role,” according to the California Judges Association.
The association also noted that complaints about judicial conduct are referred to the Commission on Judicial Performance.
“Maintaining appropriate safeguards in the recall process helps ensure that judges can make decisions solely based on the law and the facts presented in each case, without the idea of fear that routine or unpopular rulings will trigger politically motivated recall campaigns,” the California Judges Association stated.
Critics, meanwhile, argue that “this bill’s oral disclosure requirement is unnecessary, duplicative and fraught with practical and constitutional concerns,” a position supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, the Family Business Association of California and the Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce.
Opponents also contend that “the requirement of disclosure of signatures imposes more logistical challenges on the petition circulators.”
“Mandating a verbal script before each engagement slows the process, reduces the efficiency, and increases cost,” the three opponents collectively argued.
They added that petition circulators may engage hundreds of individuals in a short period and said, “This requirement would substantially diminish productivity and undermine the viability of law petition efforts.”
Opponents further argue courts have recognized burdens on petition circulation and contend that if the law restricts how signatures are collected, it could affect the recall process and limit free speech rights.
In general, supporters and opponents of SB 1369, along with public comments and evidence presented, continue to debate the recall petition process at issue.
If the bill advances, it would go before the Committee on Public Safety.
Ultimately, “as recent amendments deleted the provisions related to the penalty of perjury, it is unlikely the Committee on Public Safety will hear the bill,” the opposition stated.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
