On Saturday, October 25, 2025, The Daily Signal published an article advocating for the adoption of a California-style rule in Washington, D.C. to address concerns about biased judges in the Washington Superior Court. The article highlights a perceived pattern of overly lenient sentencing by some judges, particularly in criminal cases, and proposes a mechanism for prosecutors and defense attorneys to challenge these judges without needing to prove specific bias.
The article cites data from the District of Columbia Sentencing Commission’s 2024 annual report, which indicates that 88% of sentences falling outside the recommended guidelines were downward departures, meaning they were shorter than suggested. The 2023 report revealed that only 38% of over 5,322 felony arrests in Washington, D.C. resulted in findings of guilt.
Focusing on gun-related offenses, the article points out that from 2018 to 2022, only 1.7% of individuals arrested for carrying a pistol without a license in Washington, D.C., were sentenced to prison. While this percentage slightly increased to 3% in 2023-2024, the article emphasizes that the odds of avoiding prison for carrying an illegal gun remained high.
The article juxtaposes these sentencing trends with an increase in homicides in Washington, D.C. It notes that homicides averaged 134 per year in the 2010s but rose to an average of 222.5 between 2021 and 2024. The author argues that despite the rise in crime and what they perceive as lenient sentencing, prosecutors lack effective tools to challenge or remove judges who consistently undermine public safety through their decisions.
To address this issue, the article proposes adopting a rule similar to California’s Code of Civil Procedure §170.6. This rule allows prosecutors and defense attorneys to remove a trial judge assigned to a case by simply filing a motion and affidavit alleging bias, without requiring proof. The presiding judge must then reassign the case to a different judge. If a judge is routinely challenged, they may be reassigned to civil cases exclusively.
The article contrasts this approach with the existing system in Washington, D.C., where attorneys must file a formal motion stating specific facts and reasons for believing bias or prejudice exists. The author argues that this creates a high bar that prevents prosecutors from seeking reassignment, even when a judge’s track record suggests leniency or bias.
The Daily Signal suggests that implementing a California-style rule would balance the scales of justice in the Superior Court. The article notes that with 15 vacancies on the Superior Court as of September and additional retirements expected, the court is anticipated to become more evenly split between lenient and “law-and-order” judges.
The article concludes by asserting that now is the opportune moment to adopt a peremptory challenge system that protects both sides from bias, whether from judges who are perceived as soft on crime or those who are overly hardline. By following California’s example, Washington, D.C. can ensure impartial adjudication and maintain public confidence in the judicial system, according to The Daily Signal.
Source: The Daily Signal
