David Berger
From Ballotpedia
This page was last updated during the official's most recent election or appointment. Please contact us with any updates.
David Berger is a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in California. He assumed office on January 4, 2021. His current term ends on January 4, 2027.
Berger ran for election for judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in California. He won in the general election on November 3, 2020.
Berger completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2020. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
David Berger was born in London. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of London, Holborn College of Law in 1993 and a J.D. from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles in 1997. His professional experience includes working as a deputy district attorney and as a special assistant city attorney.[1]
Berger is affiliated with the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the British American Bar Association, the Italian American Lawyers Association, the Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the Stonewall Democratic Club, the Culver City Democratic Club, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the National Auto Sport Association, and the Shelter House Partnership.[1]
Elections
2020
See also: Municipal elections in Los Angeles County, California (2020)
General election
General election for Superior Court of Los Angeles County
David Berger defeated Klint McKay in the general election for Superior Court of Los Angeles County on November 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | David Berger (Nonpartisan)  | 55.5 | 1,865,389 |
| Klint McKay (Nonpartisan) | 44.5 | 1,493,718 | ||
| Total votes: 3,359,107 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for Superior Court of Los Angeles County
David Berger and Klint McKay defeated Nick Rini in the primary for Superior Court of Los Angeles County on March 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | David Berger (Nonpartisan) | 45.0 | 688,321 |
| ✔ | Klint McKay (Nonpartisan) | 37.6 | 574,846 | |
| Nick Rini (Nonpartisan) | 17.5 | 267,232 | ||
| Total votes: 1,530,399 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Endorsements
To view Berger's endorsements in the 2020 election, please click here.
2018
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Danielle Gibbons won election outright against David Berger in the primary for Superior Court of Los Angeles County on June 5, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Danielle Gibbons (Nonpartisan) | 53.8 | 585,786 |
| David Berger (Nonpartisan) | 46.2 | 503,393 | |
| Total votes: 1,089,179 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Selection method
- See also: Nonpartisan election
The 1,535 judges of the California Superior Courts compete in nonpartisan races in even-numbered years. If a candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote in the June primary election, he or she is declared the winner; if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff between the top two candidates is held during the November general election.[2][3][4][5]
If an incumbent judge is running unopposed in an election, his or her name does not appear on the ballot. The judge is automatically re-elected following the general election.[2]
The chief judge of any given superior court is selected by peer vote of the court's members. He or she serves in that capacity for one or two years, depending on the county.[2]
Qualifications
Candidates are required to have 10 years of experience as a law practitioner or as a judge of a court of record.[2]
2016
California held general elections for local judicial offices on November 8, 2016. There was a primary on June 7, 2016. The filing deadline for candidates who wished to run in this election was March 31, 2016. A total of 351 seats were up for election. Kim Nguyen defeated David Berger in the election for Office 158 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
| Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, Office #158 General Election, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes |
 Kim Nguyen |
51.63% | 928,404 |
| David Berger | 48.37% | 869,655 |
| Total Votes | 1,798,059 | |
| Source: Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, "2016 Unofficial General Election Results," accessed November 11, 2016 | ||
Kim Nguyen and David Berger defeated Fred Mesropi, Naser Khoury, and Onica Valle Cole in the primary election on June 7, 2016.
| Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, Office #158, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes |
| Kim Nguyen |
34.22% | 515,020 |
| David Berger |
27.36% | 411,775 |
| Fred Mesropi | 17.94% | 270,074 |
| Naser Khoury | 12.60% | 189,575 |
| Onica Valle Cole | 7.88% | 118,619 |
| Total Votes | 1,505,063 | |
| Source: Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters, "Presidential Primary Election June 7, 2016," July 1, 2016 | ||
Campaign themes
2020
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
David Berger completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2020. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Berger's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
I am an English-born immigrant with 24 years' experience at the District Attorney's Office and am a recognized expert in Alternate Sentencing where, as the DA's Assigned Designee, I oversaw the selection and supervision of non-violent offenders who were given the opportunity through Drug Court, Women's Second Chance Re-EntryCourt, Community Collaborative Court, and Veteran's Court, to avoid the consequences of a criminal conviction by participation in treatment programs. I believe in rehabilitation over retribution and that the most pressing need in our criminal justice system is to concentrate our efforts on the Juvenile Division. I believe that we need to do so much more to prevent young offenders from becoming adult offenders, and if I succeed in this election, I hope to be assigned to the Juvenile Courts where I can use all the experience I have gained to help achieve that goal. I currently oversee cases involving child molestation, adult sex crimes, elder abuse, stalking, and hate crimes. Oftentimes, these cases involve addiction, mental health issues, and poverty. These are the hardest cases, because of the vulnerability of the victims. On a lighter note, I am married with two sons, live in West Los Angeles Area, and am an active participant in many organizations in my community. When I am not at work, I enjoy photography, biking, and reading - not all at the same time!
- Nobody comes out of prison better for the experience. When we send someone to prison, instead of trying to find ways to rehabilitate them, we are essentially writing off a life. Obviously, there are some cases where there is no alternative but to incarceration, but I believe the vast majority of people who find themselves on the wrong side of the law, got there because they made poor decisions, rather than that they are inherently evil. We need to do more to offer offenders a realistic pathway to rehabilitation.
- True criminal justice reform starts with the Juvenile Justice System. There's an old adage "Mighty Oaks from small Acorns do grow." When I look at the criminal history of, sadly, too many offenders, I often see that their engagement with the criminal justice system began when they were 12 to 16 years old. They were in the Juvenile system, but we failed to offer them a viable alternative to a life of crime. This really has to change, and our resources should be prioritized on preventing these children from becoming adult offenders.
- The criminal courts system must become more 'user friendly.' There is too much about the workings of the criminal justice system that is a mystery to people who become involved it in. Whether you are an accused person., family member of an accused person, a victim, a witness,, or a juror, we need to do a better job of giving you the information that you need to understand the process. Most folks visiting a courthouse are not happy to be there. They are nervous, anxious, and confused. It is imperative that Judges make the process more easily understood, and provide assistance where needed.
The youth of today are our future, and we are not serving them well enough. At the moment, almost everything you hear about is concerned with people who are already immersed in the criminal justice system: mass incarceration, police brutality, the revolving door of the criminal justice system. These are all concerned with adults. But what about the lost opportunity that we have to prevent our youth from entering the downward spiral of the criminal justice system? What is being done to help young offenders who end up in the system? In my opinion, not nearly enough. If elected I would request assignment to the Juvenile Division where I can use everything I have learned about the criminal justice system over the past 24 years to try to improve the way we currently treat young offenders more effective. Tough on crime does not work for the majority of young offenders; it just makes them more alienated from the law abiding community. I believe that one of the most significant barriers to effectively treating young offenders is our failure to stimulate and engage their humanity. The hardest cases in the world of young offenders is the gang or 'clique' culture, and that is where I would devote my attention. The attraction of the gang culture needs to be matched with the attractiveness of a future that offers a viable, realistic, and achievable alternative. I would hope to engage civic leaders and organizations to assist in the process.
Professor Susan Poehls was one of my professors at Loyola Law School. She runs the school's excellent and nationally acclaimed Trial Advocacy program. As her student I was impressed not only by her work ethic - a willingness to work with us students way past the time most students had left the campus, but also by the way she encouraged students to push themselves beyond their comfort zones, to achieve success. Professor Poehls demanded the highest of ethics from her students and showed us that you can be an effective advocate for your client - whether as a prosecutor, plaintiffs attorney, or defense attorney, by always taking the high road. Professor Poehls' teaching strategy was not to simply be an authoritarian, but to teach by example; taking the time to encourage, not force, her standards on her students. As a judge one cannot be a professor, but one can set the tone for the courtroom and for the ways that the attorneys conduct themselves. I would hope to instill the importance of maintaining those same high ethical standards in my courtroom in much the same way - by leading by example.
Yes. I highly recommend a book recently published by retired Superior Court Judge Katherine Madder; "Inside the Robe: A Judge's Candid Tale of Criminal Justice in America." It is available on Amazon, and I highly recommend it. Judge Madder could be tough when appropriate, compassionate when necessary. She had been a defense attorney, prosecutor, and even a police commissioner, before becoming a judge. Her book reveals the inner workings of our system, and describes the kind of judge I would like to be - one who is independent but respected for her fairness and expertise.
Integrity, compassion, and experience. Integrity means that you are sincere in your impartiality - you have not claimed to be something that you are not to try to gain and advantage. Compassion means that you have an understanding of the difficulties that are faced by the parties who appear before you. And experience means that you have been in environment that you work in for a considerable period of time, and thereby demonstrated a commitment to the pursuit of justice, rather than flitting from one job to another in search of a bigger paycheck. I became a Deputy District Attorney because I believed that I could be of the most service to the people of Los Angeles County by seeking justice for both the accused and the victims of crime. Both have legitimate concerns, but their wishes differ. It takes those 3 factors that I mentioned at the beginning of this answer to ensure a fair and just resolution to cases.
I am a good listener, and I can make decisions. I believe that these are two essential qualities for a judge. Listening does not simply mean hearing what a person says, it is also important to listen to the way the person speaks, it is also taking notice of the way the person speaks; their intonation, their confidence or lack of it, and whether what they are saying is consistent with things they have said before. Sometimes, it means noticing that a person appears reluctant to explain themselves fully - perhaps they are embarrassed about personal matters, intimidated by the formality of the courtroom, or confused by the legal phrases sometimes used by attorneys. In order to be able to listen, you have to put the speaker at ease. As for making decisions, people come to court and expect a judge to be decisive. While one must never rush to judgment, a judge must have the ability to identify the facts that are relevant , understand the law that applies to the case, and make a reasoned decision. My 24 years' of courtroom experience has given me those qualities.
Primarily, it is to ensure that the courtroom is run in a way that shows respect, consideration, and an understanding of the concerns of all who appear in the courtroom - that means those accused of crime, victims, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, and court staff. The judge sets the tone for the courtroom, and must make it a place where all parties feel confident and assured that they are being treated appropriately.
This was in London. I was six years old when JFK was assassinated. It was nighttime - well past my bedtime, but something woke me up. I went downstairs to the living room where I could hear sounds coming from the t.v. set. and murmured rumblings from my parents. My uncle was an engineer in the USAF and he happened to be visiting us for a couple of weeks. I opened the door, the room was dark, the t.v. set creating flickering shadows. What surprised me was the lack of reaction to my presence by my parents - normally they would have scolded me and sent me back to bed, but that night my father just put his arm around me and held me close as we watched the images on the small black and white t.v. set. My uncle had tears in his eyes, my mother's face was ashen. I had no idea of the enormity of the event being relayed on the t.v., what stuck in my mind was that something really important had happened. I have never seen my parents so deeply moved. It was only in later years that I came to understand why that night has stuck in my mind.
I was a delivery driver for a flower store. I had to be at the flower market at 5:00am to pick up the flowers my boss had selected, take them to the store and then wait while they were made into arrangements for delivery. Then it was my job to deliver the arranged flowers to customers. This job lasted two years and saw me through the final years of my pre-University education and helped me save enough money to pay for my education and buy my first (very cheap) used car.
Inside the Robe: A Judge's Candid Tale of Criminal Justice in America' by the Hon. Katherine Mader. Retired Judge Katherine Mader's 'tell all' book about the inner workings of the largest state trial court system in the United States reveals all and leaves little to the imagination. Mader's daily diary of courtroom dramas and drama queens provides the reader with an authentic and fascinating insight into the way our criminal justice system works.
As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system for 24 years, I could not put this book down once I started reading it. There is so much that I could relate to, and so much that I never knew, but always suspected. Such is the level of cringe worthy detail in this book that it behooves all who appear in court on a regular basis, whether as a judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, juror, or even defendant, to not only read this book, but keep it handy for reference to avoid the kind of pitfalls so painfully described.
Mader wrote her book in the style of a dairy covering the trials and tribulations in her courtroom during one of her last years as a judge, before she retired in January 2020. Her diary entries are interspersed with flashbacks to her time as a duty public defender, private defense attorney, deputy district attorney, LAPD Commissioner, and (of great interest to me) a candidate in the 2000 judicial election.
Perry Mason, the fearless defense attorney who always succeeded in protecting the innocent and revealing the true identity of the culprit.
Don't stop believin' by Journey
For the most part, I think most people understand the powers and responsibilities of a judge. However, one of the things that most people do not know about are the very stringent restrictions placed on a judge. We are all familiar with our First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but when you become a judge, or even a candidate for judge, the California Code of Judicial Ethics places serious restrictions on what a judge can, and cannot say. Canon 5 of the Code states a judge or judicial candidate cannot "make speeches for a political organization or publicly endorse or publicly oppose a candidate for nonjudicial office," so I cannot comment on who I support for President, District Attorney, Supervisor, or City Council. The same applies to the many Propositions voters are faced with. Furthermore, Canon 5 prohibits judges or judicial candidates from "Commenting on or make statements to the electorate that commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the courts." So I cannot comment on whether I support or oppose all the kind of things that voters often want to know about. It is not that I am being evasive, it is simply that I have to follow the law - after all, isn't that what a judge is supposed to do?
It is my belief that the courts exist to serve the people. When there is a dispute between two sides, they come to the court looking for a simple decision - who is right? It is the job of the judge to make decisions by applying the law to the proven facts, and it is essential that a judge does not inject himself or herself into the dispute by appearing to take one side over the other. My philosophy is to, for the most part, allow the parties present their cases with all the passion and diligence it demands, and to make fair and reasoned rulings. It goes without saying, that where there is a dispute, one side is going to be pleased at my ruling, while the other side will be disappointed. That is inevitable. However, it is my philosophy that both sides should feel that they have had a fair hearing, they have been allowed to fully argue their case, and the law has been applied fairly.
One of the judges I most admire is Judge Elden S. Fox. He was one of the first judges I appeared before when I first became an attorney, and I was in his courtroom again between 2011 and 2017 when he retired. Judge Fox was the kind of judge who treated everyone equally with respect and understanding. I once asked him why he had been so courteous towards a party who was being openly disrespectful and rude? He told me something I will never forget - he said 'Look, I could have given him a talking to, could have imposed sanctions, could have done some other things, but you have to understand something, that man is already in a bad place, he's the one looking at going to jail, what is the point of making things any worse than they already are?' I learned a great deal from Judge Fox, but that I think was probably the most important thing.
Empathy is not important, it is essential. A judge needs to understand the anxiety most people feel when they are in a courtroom. Few people are there because they want to be there. A defendant, faced with going to jail if convicted, does not want to be there. His attorney, understanding the huge responsibilities of legal representation, also would rather not have the pressure of being responsible for his or her client's fate, the witness would rather not have to testify under oath and be examined and cross-examined, the prosecutor doesn't want the stress of messing up the presentation of evidence, and the jurors (mostly) would all rather be somewhere else! So it is essential that a judge empathizes with all the feelings, concerns, and anxieties of all the people who would rather be somewhere else. That does not mean that a judge should take the side of one or other empathetic person. It does, however, mean that if a judge truly understands the plight of all those who appear before him or her, that judge will go along way to making an often terrifying experience, less so.
I have been rated as "Qualified" by LACBA - the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
I chose to run for Office No. 80 because the judge who held that seat was retiring, making this an 'open' seat. There is nothing otherwise special about Office No. 80, it was simply that I did not want to run against a sitting judge. Some have questioned that, pointing out that my opponent is an administrative law judge in Sacramento. That is not the same thing as a Superior Court Judge. My opponent is not a Superior Court Judge and has no experience as a judge who conducts jury trials, whether criminal or cvil. Administrative law judges do not apply the same law, rules of evidence, or procedure as in a Superior Court. If you've ever had to fight a parking ticket that you felt was issued in error, your dispute is settled administratively, it is not comparable to the proceedings that take place in Superior Court. I have 24 years experience as an attorney who appears in Superior Court on a daily basis. I ran for Office 80 because I have more relevant experience than my opponent.
Yes. It is helpful to a judge to have some understanding of the way governmental agencies and political parties work. However, it is important to make sure that a judge with that kind of experience understands that as a judge you are no longer a member of that governmental agency or an advocate for that political party. You have to be a neutral. But understanding where the attorneys who appear before you come from is a great asset. In my case, I have the experience of 24 years working for a governmental agency - the District Attorney's Office. I know how decisions are made, and I know who to seek out when a previously made decision needs to be changed, for example, where the prosecution has made an offer to settle the case that is unrealistic given new facts that have been discovered by the defense. I believe my 24 years experience gives me an advantage over my opponent as I can guide, persuade, and suggest to the prosecutor who to talk to to get reconsideration of the offer. I believe this is an advantage I have over my opponent, and likely explains why I have received the support of over 50 judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors for my candidacy.
Currently, the primary concern is how can the courts operate safely in the midst of a pandemic? On the one hand, defendants, particularly those who are incarcerated awaiting trial, are experiencing unprecedented delays in getting their cases to trial, and this cannot continue much longer. One the other hand, it is extremely difficult to configure any of our existing courtrooms to permit social distancing which is the key to halting the spread of the virus. Just think about it for a moment; we need 12 jurors and at least 2 alternate jurors to conduct a jury trial. They have to be 6 feet apart from fellow jurors. The standard juror 'box' cannot accommodate 12 jurors who are socially distanced. So most of the jurors will have to occupy seats normally used by members of the public or friends and family of the defendant. Court proceedings, for the most part, are supposed to be open to the public, but if jurors are occupying a significant number of the seats typically used by members of the public, it is hard to see how we can ensure public access and safe seating for jurors. Equally, is it reasonable for the courts to expect that jurors will feel safe while performing jury service? Before the pandemic it was hard enough to get jurors to willingly serve - many had legitimate concerns about loss of pay and pre-arranged travel. It is a rather shocking statistic that in pre-pandemic times, roughly 30% of people summoned for jury service actually turned up. And that was before those who did show up asked to be excused for financial hardship, child care issues, and language difficulties. I understand that currently, only 11% of people summoned for jury service are responding. Without doubt the main concern today is how do we respect the speedy trial rights of the accused, while making sure the courtroom is a safe environment.
Without a doubt the opportunity that judge have to craft sentences that offer realistic opportunities for rehabilitation has never been as great as it is now. The people of our County are calling out for alternatives to incarceration and genuinely want to see the criminal justice system more involved in trying to rehabilitate offenders. I believe that the vast majority of people who find themselves on the wrong side of the law, got there mostly because they mad a stupid mistake. On the other hand, I also believe that that there are offenders who have wholeheartedly embraced the criminal lifestyle and there's nothing we can do to get them to change their ways. But, I am glad to say, the 'hardened criminal' is in the minority and for the most part we need to take advantage of alternatives to incarceration and offer these offenders a way to pay for their misconduct, and offer them a way forward.
No. I believe my experience makes better suited to being a trial judge where I can help people directly.
Basically yes. The importance of being "qualified" cannot be stressed enough. It means that after being subjected to an hour long interview process, after the comments of at least 75 attorneys and judges have been considered, the Bar Association has determined you to "possess professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament indicative of fitness to perform the judicial function satisfactorily."
However, the rating is only one aspect of a judge's ability. Other evaluations, such as a newspaper's editorial board, take a look at a candidate's skills, past experiences, and personality fit the role of the type of judge they would like to see. In short, having the Bar Association "Qualified" rating is important, but it is not the only relevant consideration when trying to decide how to vote.
However, the rating is only one aspect of a judge's ability. Other evaluations, such as a newspaper's editorial board, take a look at a candidate's skills, past experiences, and personality fit the role of the type of judge they would like to see. In short, having the Bar Association "Qualified" rating is important, but it is not the only relevant consideration when trying to decide how to vote.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
2018
Ballotpedia survey responses
- See also: Ballotpedia's candidate surveys
David Berger participated in Ballotpedia's candidate survey on May 31, 2018. The survey questions appear in bold, and David Berger's responses follow below.[6]
What would be your top three priorities, if elected?
| “ | 1. Making sure that all who appear in my court are treated fairly, respectfully, and with dignity 2. Make full use of Alternate Sentencing options for nonviolent offenders 3. Set the highest possible example of excellence, and require the same from attorneys representing their clients[7][8] | ” |
What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about? Why?
| “ | Making full use of the Alternate Sentencing Courts. As Alternate Sentencing Designee at the Airport Courthouse, I evaluate and recommend offenders for treatment and rehabilitation in Drug Court, Veterans Court, Womens Second Chance ReEntry Court, and Co-Existing Disorders Court. These courts offer real solutions to problems that are not addressed by traditional incarceration, and serve to slow down, if not halt, the revolving door of the criminal justice system.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many[8]
|
” |
Ballotpedia also asked the candidate a series of optional questions. David Berger answered the following:
Who do you look up to? Whose example would you like to follow and why?
| “ | Judge Elden S. Fox. Look him up on the robing room website, he has one of the highest ratings. Until his retirement in 2017, he was the judge I worked with for most of my career. I want to use all that I learned from him to be an excellent judge.[8] | ” |
| “ | Believe it or not, "My Cousin Vinny." Yes, it's a comedy, but from a technical standpoint, it is surprisingly accurate and is widely used in Trial Advocacy classes and Evidence classes to teach legal principles. There is also something very special about seeing those wrongly accused receive justice. I also think that sometimes, lawyers and judges take themselves too seriously. We need to maintain a sense of humor, and humanity.[8] | ” |
| “ | I would like to be remembered as a judge who treated all fairly and respectfully, who was knowledgeable on the law, and respected by fellow judges, attorneys, and parties.[8] | ” |
| “ | I remember the day JFK was assassinated. I was a very young child at the time. I had no idea who JFK was. All I remember, to this day, was the way my parents reacted. Their shock, sadness, and solemnity as grey images flashed on the tv screen, were unforgettable. I knew something really serious had happened.[8] | ” |
| “ | I was a flower deliver driver while in school. Loved seeing the reaction on the faces of people when I made a delivery.[8] | ” |
| “ | Rumpole of the Bailey. The barrister who stood up for the rights of the downtrodden.[8] | ” |
| “ | It is vital. One must be able to empathize with the difficulties of all who appear before you. The courtroom is never a 'happy place' for anyone; nobody really wants to be there - the parties, the lawyers, the witnesses, and the jurors. Understand them and you can deliver justice.[8] | ” |
| “ | No. Bar associations are clubs. They are not official bodies. They make their assessments on what they believe best serves their interests, and that is not necessarily the interests of ordinary people. They are subject to biases, cronyism, and lack transparency.[8] | ” |
See also
2020 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on October 19, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: California," archived October 2, 2014
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Safeguarding California's judicial election process," August 21, 2011
- ↑ California Elections Code, "Section 8203," accessed May 21, 2014
- ↑ California Elections Code, "Section 8140-8150," accessed May 21, 2014
- ↑ Note: The candidate's answers have been reproduced here verbatim without edits or corrections by Ballotpedia.
- ↑ Ballotpedia's candidate survey, "David Berger's responses," May 31, 2018
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
