SFBG › Politics Blog ›

All those white judges

03.12.10 - 12:47 pm | Tim Redmond |
(11)
Share

Michael Nava, who is running for Superior Court judge in San Francisco, tipped me to a fascinating document that's on the website of the California Judicial Council. It's a spreadsheet breaking down the ethnicity and gender of all the justices and trial court judges in the state. And it's pretty depressing.

In 2010, 73 percent of all trial court judges in the state are white, and 70 percent are male. A full 81 percent of the Court of Appeal judges are white, and 70 percent are male. That's astonishing.

Some counties are even worse: The Marin County judiciary is 100 percent white. Same for Napa County. San Francisco's a little better, at 66 percent white (but in a city with a majority non-white population, it's hardly representative).

Check out the pdf here.

 

Comments

dissocociation what per chance is the

make up of lawyers in these areas and how many of them are in fields that could lead to jobs in the judiciary?

You do know Tim, that judges are lawyers usually?

I would love to see a Condoleezza Rice move to SF and start running for things, that would make your blogs dissociation much more interesting.

Posted by glen matlock on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
73%

Tim,

70% of the US population are white.

So why is 73% of the judges being white somehow a over-representation?

Moreover, everyone knows that the professions are over-represented by whites. That includes the law. And Judges always have to be former lawyers (except the odd one who is elected).

So if that astonishes you then, well, I'm astonished.

Posted by Tom Foolery on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
But this is CA

And 70 percent of the California population isn't white

Posted by tim on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
All those white judges...

That's why some people---including myself---refer to the INjustice system in this nation.

And please don't feed the trolls. According to the article on trolls I put on here the other day, the trolls get paid per response/reaction to their comment. They "bait" people as much as they can in their comments to generate a direct response to them (which makes $$ for them). They are paid by the D and R parties. Don't give them the satisfaction of your response. That's my personal opinion on it.

Posted by Sam on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
All those white judges...

That's part of the reason why some people---including myself---refer to the INjustice system in this nation.

And please don't feed the trolls. According to the article on trolls I put on here the other day, the trolls get paid per response/reaction to their comment. They "bait" people as much as they can in their comments to generate a direct response to them (which makes $$ for them). They are paid by the D and R parties. Don't give them the satisfaction of your response. That's my personal opinion on it.

Posted by Sam on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Trolls?

Sam,,

Definition of a troll - someone who disagrees with you.

If about 70% of the population are white, and about 70% of Judges are white, I fail to see the issue here.

Posted by Tom Foolery on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 9:49 am
liberal guilt? sorry, i don't

liberal guilt? sorry, i don't buy the concept that any professional needs to have any set percentages belonging to any recognizable group. qualifications should be based on merit.

the problem is not why the judges are white men but why there are so few minorities who enter the professions in the first place. i have had the experience of appearing before judges who were appointed because they represent a particular social contingency, some have been great judges, others not so. but i am sure that their individual merit had less to do with gender or skin color than the make-up of the each judge's character.

Posted by jujul on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 12:44 am
Oh dear

The paternalism of the Guardian world view is odd.

For many statistics to be useful there needs to be a few controls taken into account.

You know how we all laugh when James Randi torments some ESP crank with controls?

When saying that white people overly represent a group, in this case we need to know such things as how many non whites are in the same field, how many of a various demographic are of the certain age that usually becomes judges, and how many are in the right field of the law.

The Guardian position here is that they can find water with a bent stick, if we ask them to prove it, we are stupid unbelievers.

Tim would make a better case with say, head football coaches at the various levels which are overly white, which is slowly changing as the goal is to win.

Posted by glen matlock on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Racial score-carding again?

What's the ethnic breakdown of journalists at the Guardian?

Affirmative Action needed here?

Posted by Barton on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
So?

No one cares.

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
It'a going to get worse guys.

It'a going to get worse guys. The cost of law school now is so high that only rich kids will be able to go to law school and what color are most rich people in the U.S. yup. They had to get rid of affirmative action because it let white people out. Well, this is the result. Now how many judges know how it feels not to have enough money to buy groceries, and having to feed your kids potatoes and weenies at the end of the month. Or not having the money to pay those damn parking tickets, forget fixing your car. Or not having enough money to pay the rent. So when you go before those white haired male judges for not paying your fines, just tell him your problems, I'm sure they'll be able to relate to your situation. Disgusting isn't it.

Posted by Guestmcz on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 6:38 pm