Many documents from the San Francisco Superior Court civil courthouse, pictured in 2017, are not available online, and many records can only be requested in-person or via mail.

Judicial elections — and judges themselves — are increasingly being subjected to the same political pressures and hyperpolarization that define the rest of American politics. 

In recent years, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has routinely blasted criminal court judges for — among other things — refusing to grant her requests to keep alleged fentanyl dealers in custody. In 2024, two incumbent San Francisco County Superior Court judges were challenged, albeit unsuccessfully, by well-funded election opponents who argued they were soft on crime. An Orange County citizens’ group is currently seeking to recall six probate and family court judges that it believes are biased, with plans to pursue further judicial recalls in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Sacramento counties. 

The June primary election in San Francisco will feature only one contested judicial race. There could have been another: Lawyer Anthony Tartaglio filed papers to challenge controversial Superior Court Judge Michelle Tong — only to backtrack a week later. As I first reported, Tong’s ruling in a 2023 family law case permitted a woman accused of abusing her husband to “abduct” the couple’s son and take him to Kazakhstan; years later, the child has not been returned to his father. (Tong is thus running unopposed, along with 21 other incumbent judges. None will appear on the ballot.)

Article continues below this ad

Tartaglio declined to comment when I asked why he dropped out of the race. But one potential reason could be that judicial elections are arguably the most confusing items on California’s ballot. Strict ethics rules aimed at preserving the integrity of the court process limit how much judges and judicial candidates can speak........

© San Francisco Chronicle