Staff Reports
The California Commission on Judicial Performance has done what too few oversight bodies manage to do: it removed a sitting Los Angeles County Superior Court judge for a pattern of racist, sexist and otherwise improper conduct. Judge Robert S. Draper, an appointee of former Governor Jerry Brown, was hit with a removal order after the commission found extensive misconduct. The order becomes effective under the commission’s terms in about 30 days, and Draper says he will seek review in the California Supreme Court.
What the commission found: racist and sexist comments, breaches of trust
The commission sustained 17 findings of misconduct against Judge Draper, including willful and prejudicial violations of judicial standards. The record documents repeated race‑focused digressions during hearings, sexualized remarks and crude comments to female attorneys, and even an episode where he stroked a lawyer’s hair while talking about “Black history” and “Black football players.” Investigators also pointed to abusive, racist emails sent to colleagues and the improper dissemination of confidential juvenile‑dependency materials. The commission condemned the behavior as “extensive and severe misconduct.”
Why this removal matters for judicial discipline and public trust
Removal of a trial‑court judge is rare, and the commission’s action sends a blunt message: judges are not above basic standards of decency or the law. Colleagues had raised alarms about Draper’s declining fitness and behavior long before the final order. The removal reinforces that judicial discipline mechanisms can work — when they act firmly and transparently. It also matters practically: Draper lost his reelection bid this year to Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Tal K. Valbuena, and that election result will now align with the commission’s administrative fix.
Draper’s response and what comes next
Judge Draper has denied wrongdoing, called the process political payback, and said he will petition the California Supreme Court. That is the normal procedural route; a Supreme Court review could extend the dispute. Meanwhile, the commission’s order will take effect unless stayed, and the seat is slated to be filled by the election winner in the usual transition. Expect renewed talk about reforms — mandatory retirement ages, clearer fitness reviews, and stronger internal reporting — as local judges and lawmakers digest the fallout.
Bottom line: the justice system depends on public confidence, and that confidence cracks when judges act like bullies or worse. This removal is uncomfortable for some, inconvenient for others, and necessary for everyone who expects fairness from the bench. If anything comes next, let it be clearer rules and quicker accountability — because a robe shouldn’t be a license to behave without basic human decency.
