What does it take for citizens to demand the impeachment of a sitting judge? In 2018, a group of advocates in Solano County did just that, filing a detailed petition with the California State Assembly against (then) family court Judge Christine Carringer. The document they created is a powerful testament to their grievances.
We believe this petition deserves to be read in its entirety. We are publishing the full text of this important public record, broken down into manageable sections.
Section 1: The Introduction and Grievance
This first section lays out the core purpose of the document: to petition the California Assembly to impeach Judge Christine Carringer of Solano County. It frames the issue as a matter of extreme judicial misconduct.
Page 1 CALIFORNIA PROTECTIVE MOTHER’S OF SOLANO COUNTY PO Box 1198 #1352 Sacramento, CA 95812 Telephone (707) 430-5095 Fax (707) 637-8730
Petitioner with Grievance
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITEE
) A Petition to the Assembly ) CALIFORNIA PROTECTIVE MOTHER’S ) OF SOLANO COUNTY, ) Petitioner. ) ) ) ) JUDGE CHRISTINE CARRINGER ) ) Respondent(s). ) ) ) ) ) PETITION TO IMPEACH A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE CHRISTINE CARRINGER OF SOLANO COUNTY UNDER ARTICLE 4 SEC 18 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Page 2 “[Sir Edward Coke] asserted that a corrupt judge was the greatest of all grievances and harmed the commonwealth more than anyone else because he made every subject a tenant at will for his rights.”
- Sir Edward Coke and the Grievances of the Commonwealth Pg. 54
“I speak not because the Chancellor is in a cloud, but according to liberty of a true subject. A corrupt Judge is the grievance of grievances.”
- Bowen, The Lion and the Throne Pg. 426
I. INTRODUCTION
A. An Impeachment We are bringing this petition for impeachment to the California Assembly. The action is against Judge Christine Carringer who presides in Solano County and has engaged in egregious misconduct that involves family law cases in Solano County. Judge Carringer has engaged in multiple acts that breach the very fiber of fairness that all persons who go before any judge in this state or any other should expect. We allege these acts include crimes under the Color of Law. She has acted far outside what would be considered normal discretion and has used her office to deliberately harm people who appear before her who would reasonably deserve fairness and justice.
B. Impeachments in General Impeachments no longer seem to occur in California. The last one happened in 1929. The fact that there are fewer representatives in the California Legislature (120) than Judges (over 2,000) may have caused this. However, the matters involving Judge Carringer are severe enough to bring to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, for the facts to be collected, and then taken to the full Assembly for a vote and then finally to the State Senate for a trial. Impeachments are still allowed under Article IV Sec. 18 of the California Constitution.
Section 2: Why Bypass the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)?
This section explains the petitioners’ rationale for taking the extraordinary step of seeking legislative impeachment rather than going through the standard judicial disciplinary body, the CJP. They argue the CJP is ineffective, non-transparent, and fails to hold judges accountable.
Page 3 C. Commission on Judicial Performance People who have complaints against Judges are often told to file complaints with the Commission on Judicial Performance (The “CJP”). The CJP supposedly acts as oversight to the Judges of California. However, it has come to our attention, from an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (See Exhibit A), that the CJP when compared to other states judicial oversight committees, does not really do its job. Furthermore, the CJP process in California is not transparent. The article stated in part that:
“The [CJP] panel recently released its 2015 Annual Report revealing that it publicly disciplined just four judges out of the 1,231 complaints it reviewed. An additional 37 of these complaints resulted in a private advisory letter or private admonishment, wherein the name of the judge was withheld from the public and only a brief description of the misconduct was provided in the annual report. The commission withheld all information about the 1,190 complaints it dismissed without discipline, 90 percent of which were dismissed without an inquiry or investigation.
Court Reform LLC, a San Francisco Bay Area advocacy firm, compared the discipline rates of the commissions of California, Texas, New York and Arizona over the past 10 years and the results are troubling.
Arizona’s overall discipline rate was four times higher than California’s and its public discipline rate was five times higher. Texas investigated three times as many complaints, publicly disciplined three times as many judges, and removed six times as many judges. New York had more than 10 times as many complaints (358) as California (34) resulting in judges leaving the bench with complaints pending a likely indication that New York’s judges know their watchdog has teeth, while California’s watchdog may be asleep.”
Also, when the California legislature sent the state auditor to review the CJP, the entity filed a complaint for an injunction to stop the auditor from doing an investigation (See Commission on Judicial Performance v. Elaine M. Howle Case No. 16-515308. The trial court ruled in favor of the agency that oversees it. The matter has been appealed to the California Supreme Court (which is also overseen by the CJP).
Page 4 Judicial Watch (JW) filed an amicus with the trial court and noted that an audit would increase public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and independence citing the forward to the book Standards for Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities & Functions: Audits provide essential accountability and transparency over government programs. Given the current challenges facing governments and their programs, the oversight provided though auditing is more critical than ever. Government auditing provides objective analysis and information needed to make the decisions necessary to help create a better future.
JW further noted that the Federal Judiciary had been audited twice. “Federal courts were subject to at least two comprehensive audits between 1990 and 2006…” JW also noted that it filed its own complaints on judges in California with the CJP and never heard the results. This is a process no reasonable person can trust.
As citizens, we have no faith in the CJP process in place. The idea that an agency that oversees all the Judges in California has never been audited and now is fighting being audited is an admission of guilt. This is especially true in light of the fact that it proportionally disciplines fewer judges than other similar state commissions and the entire process is kept secret. The few judges who are removed are done so for what seem trivial reasons like having sex with their clerks or felony convictions. Most of the judges removed are from less populated rural areas and more often it is elected judges over appointed judges. Judges rarely get removed for severe misconduct. In fact, it seems that those are the very judges being protected by this non-transparent process.
Going directly to the legislature and bypassing a system that does not work is not only proper, but necessary. The CJP does not do the necessary job. It is either incompetent or intentionally shielding judges who engage in this corruption. The latter is more likely.
Section 3: The Legal Foundation for Impeachment
This section outlines the specific constitutional and statutory authority that allows the California Legislature to impeach a Superior Court judge, establishing the legal grounds for the petition.
Page 5 II. VENUE AND JURISDICTION
A. The legislature is the only venue for Impeachments “The Assembly has the sole power of impeachment. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate.” Cal Const Art IV Sec §18(a)
B. Superior Court Judges may be Impeached
- California Constitution: Judges are clearly delineated in the California Constitution for Impeachment: “State officers elected on a statewide basis, members of the State Board of Equalization, and judges of state courts are subject to impeachment for misconduct in office. Judgment may extend only to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the State, but the person convicted or acquitted remains subject to criminal punishment according to law.” Cal Const Art IV Sec §18(b)
- State statutes support this: “State officers elected on a statewide basis, members of the State Board of Equalization, and judges of state courts are subject to impeachment for misconduct in office.” Government Code §3020. Officers subject to impeachment
C. Case Law Supporting this As well. Judicial Officers may be held accountable for their Actions “Judicial officers may be called to account… for willful or corrupt conduct in office, where, in exercise of powers, they act with partiality, or maliciously, corruptly, arbitrarily, or oppressively.” Frazier v. Moffatt (1951) 108 Cal App 2d 379, 239 P2d123, 1951 Cal App LEXIS 2057.