Palo Altans voted against the recall, but it passed in San Jose

In this map from the Registrar of Voters’ website, the green shows precincts that voted in favor of the recall of Judge Aaron Persky while the blue represents precincts where the recall failed.
In this map from the Registrar of Voters’ website, the green shows precincts that voted in favor of the recall of Judge Aaron Persky while the blue represents precincts where the recall failed.

BY ALLISON LEVITSKY
Daily Post Staff Writer

The recall of Judge Aaron Persky passed by a wide margin in Santa Clara County but a majority of voters in Palo Alto, Stanford, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills voted against it, a precinct-by-precinct breakdown of election results shows.

While the recall failed in the northern part of the county, it did well in South Bay cities such as San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Milpitas and Gilroy.

The leaders of the two campaigns offered different reasons yesterday for the split in county voters.
The recall leader, Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, said she thought Persky won support in the North County because of his social connections. Persky, who got his bachelor’s degree at Stanford and law degree from UC-Berkeley, lives in Los Altos Hills and presided at the Palo Alto Courthouse.

“I think that Judge Persky did better in those limited areas where he had alumni, class, professional and personal connections such as Stanford, Palo Alto and Los Altos,” Dauber told the Post in an email. “In the South County, that was not the case and people voted against him based on the fact that he has a track record of terrible judgment.”

Retired judge LaDoris Cordell, a leader in the campaign against the recall, speculated that the recall’s relatively paltry support in the North County had to do with the recall campaign’s leadership.

“I guess I’m not surprised that North County said no, because there are more people who know who Michele Dauber is — people at Stanford, Palo Alto — and trying to put all of what she’s doing into context more than people who live in San Jose,” Cordell told the Post. “The more you know about her, the more you’re apt to vote no.”

Dauber started the movement after Persky gave 19-year-old freshman Brock Turner six months in county jail for digitally penetrating a 23-year-old family friend of Dauber’s who was passed out drunk outside a fraternity party on campus.

National visibility

Dauber’s movement benefited from national visibility in 2016 when a poignant victim impact statement written by Turner’s victim, known by the pseudonym Emily Doe, was published by BuzzFeed and spread widely on social media.

Cordell pointed out that the recall also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars more than Persky did, disseminating five political mailers across the county, buying ads on social media and even airing commercials on the streaming service Hulu.

“There’s no way we could keep up with that,” Cordell said.

Dauber also won the support of the influential South Bay Labor Council and she “lambasted Persky” at meetings of the progressive political groups Orchard City Indivisible in Campbell and Together We Will in San Jose, Cordell said.

“I went down and talked to them, and they were all very hostile to me,” Cordell said. “They were just all in that camp.”

Stanford voters against the recall

Out of 618 votes cast in precincts 2545 and 2546, where Stanford faculty and other affiliates live in a residential part of campus between Campus Drive and Page Mill Road, more than 70% were against the recall.

Almost 30 of Dauber’s colleagues at Stanford Law School signed a letter in August voicing opposition to the recall.

The only precinct at Stanford where voters favored the recall was Precinct 2544, which encompasses Escondido Village — home to 834 graduate students. There, a whopping two-thirds of the 234 voters who cast a ballot supported the recall.

Of the 131 voters who cast ballots in Precinct 2542, which encompasses most of the Stanford campus, 53.44% were against the recall.

Dauber’s precinct voted ‘no’

Of 380 voters in Dauber’s precinct in Palo Alto’s Barron Park neighborhood, 60.53% voted against the recall. Of 319 voters in Persky’s precinct in Los Altos Hills, 63.32% opposed the recall.
Countywide, the recall won the support of 59.8% of the 184,862 votes that had been counted last night.

Cordell said she was disappointed by the low turnout: only 24.32% of the county’s 846,228 registered voters bothered to cast a ballot in the primary.

With prepaid postage on mail-in ballots, voting is easier now than ever before, she pointed out.

“This is crazy,” Cordell said. “People don’t exercise their right to vote.”

8 Comments

  1. Three months in jail was a ridiculously light sentence that diminished the seriousness of this attack. I’m tired of hearing that this judge simply rubber stamped the probation officer’s recommendation. There was obviously a break down in the probation dept for them to have made that recommendation. It was up to the judge to catch the error. We don’t elect probation officers but we do elect judges. This is about holding elected officials accountable.

    • If you go to Stanford Daily, there is a guest Op Ed against the recall with a link to the probation report – it may also be in the LA Times online documents from the case.
      If you are going to say Probation got it wrong, please access that report, read it, and tell us precisely how.

      I think Judge Cordell got it right – the more people know about Michele Dauber the less they were likely to vote for the recall. They know it was all her baby and they simply don’t trust her claims.

      If you go on YouTube and search “Democracy Now” and “Michele Dauber” you get 3 interviews Dauber gave to Amy Goodman- one of them, uploaded I think June 8, 2016, begins with “Before giving Stanford Rapist Six Months…..”

      In that interview, Dauber makes some really outrageous over the top claims. She claims Turner beat Emily Doe nearly to death “gruesome crime scene” “bystanders could not tell if she was alive” “like something off CSI” and finally, Doe was “Gravely Injured” – she leaves no doubt Turner is a monster and Emily Doe was lucky to get out alive.

      The forensic medical exam showed NO injuries whatever – and that Doe was released the next morning – and a supplemental police report made when Doe came to get her phone shows Doe telling the cop she had “no injuried” and “no pain”
      .
      In the interview, Dauber goes on to say Turner’s brutality towards Doe is why the sentence makes no sense and is one of the main reasons a recall is needed.

      Another lie told by Dauber was that Turner stuffed “dirt and pine needles” into Doe’s vagaina – this was also in Emily Doe’s famoust speech – another lie -there was nothing found in her vagina.

      So, Dauber stoked outrage against Turner and Persky – outrage which would have been well justified if there was any truth to these claims – both were totally false.

      The day after the interview was uploaded, the LA Time uploaded the trial documents which disproved these claims – and Dauber and Recall Persky quietly dropped them – but never retracted them – I came across many outraged people who believed these lies almost two years later. Dauber also promoted the claim Turner was “privileged” – of course being a Stanford student with full scholarship is privileged -but she wanted to believe he was rich – she was using class envy to drive the recall – and it worked per these precinct results – but Turner is a poor boy from out of town by Stanford standards – grew up in a $300K house (current value) the parents got by both working.

      The last big lie IMO was the claim of Persky being biased against Latinos- the Raul Ramirez case. Dauber knew Ramirez’ sentence was pursuant to a plea bargain and told us nothing bout what sentence Persky would give – and yet we saw not just Dauber, but US Senator wannabe Kevin De Leon repeating this entirely false claim –

      The best reason to vote against the recall, in the end – and I totally agree with all the arguments people against the recall have made – but the best argument in the end might be to punish people who are to thoroughly dishonest.

  2. With all due respect to LaDoris Cordell she is unequivocally mistaken when she says she came and spoke to Orchard City Indivisible. I am the co-founder and co-chair of OCI and have missed exactly one weekly meeting since January 2017. We keep scrupulous records and every attendee is required to check in upon entry. Ms Cordell has never been to OCI. Perhaps she has OCI confused one of the many other Indivisible groups in the South Bay.

  3. I am another of the co-founders of Orchard City Indivisible in addition to being a Stanford alum and former resident of Palo Alto.

    LaDoris Cordell never came down to speak to our group. The suggestion that OCI was “very hostile” to her is absurd. We maintain a very respectful relationship with all of our guest speakers, as I think any of the many who have come to speak with us can attest.

    For the record, OCI as an organization did not take an official stance on the Persky Recall.

  4. Me thinks the folks from OCI doth protest too much. Are they feeling some guilt that San Jose voted so overwhelmingly to recall Judge Persky?

  5. Is it just me that has a problem with Steve White’s statements?
    >Dauber makes some really outrageous over the top claims…“gruesome crime scene”
    >“bystanders could not tell if she was alive”
    The statements of the two grad students on the scene–one who chased Turner and the other who helped Emily Doe–confirm Dauber’s statements are not a stretch by any means. Steve, why do you selectively disparage Dauber to relieve Turner and blame Doe? why do you not turn to the statements of the grad students themselves? they were on the scene after all.
    And while you and others in your camp are at it why do you not also go to the statements of the Stanford swim team members and hear what they had to say about Turner? Turns out he was creeping them out…before he was caught with his pants down.

    >Turner is a poor boy…the parents got by both working.
    Sure, didn’t his father question why his son was being held accountable for “fifteen minutes of action”? Some working parent and some poor boy of a son.

  6. This makes complete sense. The wealthy elite of the county bank on the entrenched systems that benefits them. Persky is one of the good ol’ boys and they need to protect their own. After all, he he goes down then who’s next. It used to be that wealth and power protected those who possess it. For once, a democracy functions on behalf of the masses and the elite are losing their shit over it.

    Cordell spoke honestly when she initially decried Persky’s bias and proclaimed “white privilege” but she is content to let him remain on the bench. Why? because she’s a part of that system. These are her people and she must protect them. I’m sure she’s had more than one person tell her this recall was fueled in part by her statements, so must make amends somehow. She’s used race baiting, blamed the victim, and tries to make this about Dauber instead of Persky.

    The people have spoken. Get over it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.