No on the ‘Defenders of Justice’

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

Page 8

EDITORIAL

No on the ‘Defenders of Justice’

Judges should have calendars, not agendas—that is, they should not have agendas of a political/philosophical nature. Yet, there are three candidates for Los Angeles Superior Court open seats—members of the “Defenders of Justice”—who have been put up by a political action committee that is tied to interconnected left-of-center organizations that do have an agenda, one that includes opposition to prison sentences and a desire to debilitate the police.

Those who are financing the campaigns have an evident expectation that their candidates, if elected, will dedicate efforts toward furthering the agenda.

Whatever the orientation of an organization sponsoring candidates who adhere to its precepts—far-left, far-right, pro-life, pro-planned parenthood, pro-labor, pro-business, you-name-it—those candidates must be looked upon with skepticism.

There are still states—nine of them—where trial-court judges run on political party tickets. Those candidates are beholden to the parties and their platforms. That system was repudiated in California in 1911 in one of the bold, innovative, and laudable reforms urged by Gov. Hiram Johnson. It is incompatible with the nonpartisanship established 112 years ago for judicial candidates in this state to be agents of groups seeking to promote particular changes in the courses taken by the courts.

Judges do have First Amendment rights; they will, it is to be hoped, form views on needed changes in the legal system and, to the extent it would not compromise their image of neutrality in adjudicating cases, to express those views publicly. But for judicial candidates to align themselves with crusades that fund their election efforts, at least inferentially pledging allegiance to the benefactors’ goals (and surely they are vetted before being chosen for funding), runs contrary to the notion that judges, and would-be judges, should not be captives to any special interests.

he three who are now running as “Defenders of Justice” are Deputy Public Defender Ericka J. Wiley, seeking Office No. 48; Deputy Public Defender George A. Turner, apparently an aspirant for Office No. 39 (he hasn’t filed his nominating petition yet); and criminal defense lawyer La Shae Henderson, a candidate for Office No, 97 whose false ballot designation as “Deputy Public Defender” has been protested to the Registrar-Recorder’s Office and could be the subject of a court challenge.

The name “Defenders of Justice” was used last year by four candidates, only one of whom—the only non-radical, Holly Hancock—was elected. They were financed, as are the current “defenders,” by what has called itself “Justice PAC by La Defensa, a Project of Tides Advocacy.” On Friday, it filed an amendment with the California Secretary of State’s Office lengthening its name to “Justice PAC by La Defensa, a Project of Tides Advocacy for Henderson, Turner and Wiley for Judge 2024.”

In its reports to that office, La Defensa is denominated a “project” of Tides Advocacy, yet it is listed on Tides Advocacy’s website as one of its 90 “partners.” A “project” implies that it belongs to Tides Advocacy; a “partner” would be an allied entity.

In any event, Henderson, Turner and Wiley (“H,T&W”) are candidates of “La Defensa” which is tethered to “Tides Advocacy.”

a Defensa declares, “We’re working to reduce the power and scope of the judiciary, law enforcement, and the legal injustice system” and says: “We advance bold pretrial reform that shifts power and funding away from law enforcement….”

The organization explains:

“We work to elect progressive candidates that advance community informed criminal justice reform.”

La Defensa describes itself as an “anti-capitalist movement” and notes:

“We approach our work through an abolitionist lens….”

Among other “partners” of Tides Advocacy is Life After Release, which has this mission: “to abolish the criminal legal system.” There’s Dream Defenders, a socialist “abolitionist” group that says: “We are fighting for a world without prisons, policing, surveillance and punishment.” Also, there’s Mass Liberation which asserts that the criminal justice system “upholds the social order of white supremacy, patriarchy and capitalism” and proclaims as its objective to “dismantle the system as we know it.” And, one county over from us, is OC Action which advocates “dismantling and eliminating the threats of criminalization and deportation of our communities.”

ides Advocacy—with net assets of $43.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2021, according to its audited financial statement—is one of four “entities” of the Tides Network. It is a 501(c)(4) (social welfare) non-profit corporation. The other entities are Tides Foundation (which makes grants), The Tides Center (which “supports social change leaders”) and the Tides Converge (which “brings together leaders from a range of social ventures”). The consolidated financial statement of those three Tides units show assets of $1.3 billion as of last Dec. 31.

There’s no direct link between New York billionaire George Soros—who officiously seeks, through donations, to influence the outcome of elections across the nation and outside its borders—and the Defenders of Justice. There is, however, a link between Soros and the Tides entities. Details come from less than neutral, though not unreliable, sources.

According to a Jan. 4 report by Capital Research Center, a pro-capitalism outfit, in 2021, “Soros gave $22 million to Tides Advocacy, one of the top incubators of new political groups on the Left.”

A Dec. 21, 2022 account on the conservative Fox News relates:

“Nonprofits in liberal billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations network dropped at least $35 million into anti-police groups and initiatives in 2021, tax forms reviewed by Fox News Digital show.

“Soros views overhauling the criminal justice system as a high priority and has bankrolled numerous groups and initiatives working on such efforts in recent years. He has also financially backed dozens of far-left prosecutor candidates as part of the efforts.”

It says that “[a]s part of the most recent efforts, Soros’ Open Society Policy Center sent $15 million to Tides Advocacy….”

A report last Thursday in the right-of center New York Post advises:

“Far-left billionaire kingmaker George Soros has funneled more than $15 million since 2016 to groups behind this month’s pro-Palestine protests, where demonstrators openly cheered Hamas militants’ craven terrorist attacks on Israel.

“A Post examination of Open Society Foundations records shows Soros’ grant-making network gave $13.7 million of the money through Tides Center, a deep-pocketed lefty advocacy group that sponsors several nonprofits who’ve justified Hamas’ bloody attacks while claiming Palestinians obsessed with the eradication of the Jewish state are the real victims.”

lthough H,T&W cannot accurately be described as Soros-backed candidates (in all probability, Soros hasn’t heard of them), they are financed by “Justice PAC by La Defensa, a Project of Tides Advocacy etc.,” and Tides, a multi-compartment organization dedicated to left-of-center causes, is heavily financed by Soros.

Suffice it to say that funding for the campaigns of the “Defenders of Justice” will not be coming, to any appreciable extent, from members of the Los Angeles legal community who know first-hand of the abilities of H,T&W and believe them to be capable of serving on the bench.

To the contrary, subsidizing will emanate from coffers in which money has been placed by Soros and others who would not know where Los Angeles courthouses are located or what skills the 2024 “Defenders of Justice” possess, or lack. The donors have devoted resources to a philosophical cause they seek to promote, and H,T&W have been deemed, by whomever, to be adherents to that cause, ergo worthy of support.

Voters leaning to the left, like Soros, or to the right, will naturally seek the election of persons who share their views to partisan offices. But voters, wherever they are on the political spectrum, ought to recognize that the political philosophy of a judicial candidate is not what matters. What counts in elections to judgeships is a contestant’s capacity for disregarding personal outlooks, applying the law faithfully, and determining the facts with objectivity.

hat we’re not talking about is endorsements. All of the candidates in judicial races and other contests in the March 5 primary no doubt covet the Los Angeles Times’s endorsement. Now that slate mailers have largely lost their effectiveness—there is no longer an ideal time to send them out in light of the prevalence of balloting-by-mail at wide-ranging times—the Times’s recommendations are once again weighty. Indeed, Hancock might well not have been elected but for the Times’s endorsement last year.

Republican Party registration in the county has withered and most judicial candidates crave the Los Angeles County Democratic Party’s endorsement; in fact, there are some Republican loyalists, over the past few years, who have re-registered as Democrats to qualify for the party’s nod. Endorsements of labor unions are commonly sought and the majority of candidates—though not H,T&W—hope for the support of law enforcement groups.

But the Times, the Democratic Party, the SEIU and the Police Protective League do not put up slates of candidates committed to their goals. They, like us, merely express preferences.

By contrast, H,T&W are candidates of their backers. The Oakland-based “Justice PAC by La Defensa, a Project of Tides Advocacy” is financing them. None has a separate campaign website. None independently expresses views.

We view as significant that Henderson, Turner and Wiley could not, lawfully, independently raise more than $2,000 in a calendar year. None has filed with the Secretary of State’s Office a “statement of organization” of a finance committee

They are being run by a PAC, and are running as a pack—with no independent identity.

anon 5 of the Code of Judicial Ethics provides that “[j]udicial independence” and “impartiality” are goals that “shall dictate the conduct of judges and candidates for judicial office.”

H,T&W are products being peddled by a PAC. They are bereft of independence. They are aligned with a movement that has expressed such antipathy toward the criminal justice system as to render them lacking in impartiality and consequently unfit for criminal court assignments.

There is, in each of their races, at least one candidate with, by any objective measure, far superior credentials for a judgeship.

We urge voter rejection of Henderson, Turner and Wiley.