Judicial accountability is not 'misinformation' – it's democracy

The sentiment surrounding the Placer County judicial race reveals something much larger than a disagreement over one election. It reveals a growing discomfort with the idea that local communities have input in their judiciary. Crime Victims United has spent decades inside courtrooms, as attorneys, advocates, victims, survivors and justice professionals. We regularly defend judicial discretion because we understand how essential it is to a functioning justice system. We know judges must make difficult calls. We know discretion carries enormous responsibility. But discretion also carries accountability. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Placer County bench. I have personally worked with some judges and know firsthand the importance of their decisions. That is why upholding the integrity of the institution is so important. Questioning whether repeated exercises of discretion reflect the values, safety expectations and standards of a local community is not an attack on the judiciary; on the contrary, it is part of the democratic process itself. It is important to note that many of the loudest voices defending the status quo in this race are individuals and institutions with a vested interest in political preservation, not individuals who spend day to day working in the community. Rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns being raised by local residents, victims, courtroom observers and legal professionals, the response has largely been to suggest that only those who "best understand the role" are qualified to weigh in and that those individuals uniformly support the incumbent. Respectfully, that sentiment is precisely why judicial elections exist. Under California law, judges are elected officials. If judicial organizations or statewide PACs believe judges should no longer face meaningful electoral review, they are free to advocate for constitutional changes removing judicial elections altogether. But until that day comes, local elections remain one of the few mechanisms communities have to provide accountability over officials exercising extraordinary governmental power. This concept is not radical. Across the country, Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are actively debating judicial accountability, term limits, transparency and the proper role of the judiciary. Even at the federal level, elected leaders have proposed reforms aimed at strengthening public trust within the courts. What is troubling is the increasingly dismissive and condescending tone directed toward residents, victims and legal professionals who dare to participate in that conversation. Today's judges exercise enormous discretion over issues involving diversion, bail, victim protections, sentencing, mental health cases and public safety decisions that directly affect local communities every single day. Judicial discretion is not theoretical; it has real consequences for victims, businesses, families and community safety. Another troubling trend that has arisen in the election is labeling legitimate community concerns as "misinformation" or "ridiculous." While the status quo is trying to justify the actions made in the Galleria case, the facts remain that Judge Dixson exercised his lawful discretion in a case involving an admitted offender accused of conduct involving minors and permitted that individual to continue working unsupervised around children during the course of criminal proceedings. Residents now have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether those are the kinds of decisions they want reflected from the local bench. That is not "misinformation." That is democracy functioning exactly as intended. With that in mind, a very significant inaccuracy that was printed is Judge Dixson being up for "reelection." Judge Dixson was never elected by the voters of Placer County. He was appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy. That distinction matters and is central to why this election is important. Elections following judicial appointments are one of the few opportunities communities have to provide meaningful checks and balances within an otherwise highly insulated system. Under California law, if a sitting judge is not challenged, their name often does not even appear on the ballot, further reducing public awareness, scrutiny and engagement in judicial races. It is also important to recognize that many of the people speaking out in this race are not political outsiders or people who are retired and no longer working in the system. They are prosecutors, victims, courtroom observers, business owners and residents who work within the system every single day and understand firsthand how courtroom decisions impact real people. Dave Bass has the integrity, courtroom experience and judgment to serve as an exceptional judge. But increasingly important, he also respects the constitutional role communities play in judicial elections and understands that public engagement in the process should be encouraged, not dismissed with the attitude that only institutional insiders should have meaningful input into our judiciary. For these reasons, Dave Bass deserves support for judge on June 2. Debbie Boyd is a board member of Crime Victims United, one of California's longest-standing victims' rights advocacy organizations. She is a longtime victims' rights advocate who lost her daughter, Christie Wilson, in 2005 in what became Placer County's first no-body homicide case. Debbie resides in Placer County with her husband, Pat, and continues to advocate for a balanced, problem-solving approach to California's most pressing criminal justice issues.