The Brief

California’s primary election is Tuesday — and one race poses a challenging question to voters: Should a judge who’s accused of ethics violations by the state watchdog of judges get re-elected?

That’s the situation for Judge Robert Draper, who’s running to keep his seat in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. With about 15 years on the bench, Draper, 84, told LAist he hasn’t had disciplinary issues until now.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance, the state body that oversees judicial complaints, conducted an investigation into complaints and charged Draper with misconduct in office. The commission’s members, who are also the final decision-makers here, won’t make a determination on whether to discipline him until after the primary.

Here’s what you should know about what’s at stake and what could happen next.

A quick primer

Draper was appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012. Superior Court judges have to run for reelection after they’ve been appointed. Draper is running for a third full term and is on the ballot for all L.A. County voters under Office No. 2, facing a challenge from Tal Valbuena, a deputy district attorney.

The commission has charged him with seven counts of violating judicial ethics. (The proceedings against him aren’t civil or criminal, but the commission uses similar terminology.) The commission is an 11-member group of judges, lawyers and others who are appointed by the governor, the Legislature and the California Supreme Court.

Draper is currently assigned to “chambers work only.” He and his attorney told LAist Draper's court-issued email account is restricted and his room does not have a computer or staff. He hasn’t heard a case since he returned in June 2023 from an involuntary leave that, according to commission records, was tied to the alleged ethics violations.

Among the allegations Draper is facing:

• Sending nude photos from a confidential child abuse case to colleagues via a court email address, according to commission records.
• Making irrelevant comments about race, including using the term “coal black,” during a case, and calling women in the courthouse “attractive” and “cute,” according to commission records.

A panel of independent “special masters” oversaw a six-day hearing earlier this month on the charges. The special masters are expected to issue a report on their findings within the next several weeks — but a decision on possible disciplinary action still rests with the commission.

According to the commission’s charge document, the allegations against Draper center on willful misconduct in office, failure to perform his duties and actions that affect the judicial office’s reputation. Draper has denied some of the claims and, in an interview with LAist, gave reasons for others.

The commission initially claimed that his behavior was evidence of an unnamed disability that interferes with his duties (which could get judges removed from the bench, if proven), but LAist confirmed that claim has been withdrawn.

Draper told LAist he is navigating health issues. Over the last few years, he’s been prescribed medication that made his Parkinson’s disease worse, he said, and had a detached retina and a rotator cuff injury. He added that he’s also coping with grief — his son died this year shortly before the hearing.

The seven counts Draper faces from the judicial ethics commission cover accusations dated 2022 and 2023. We’ll explore the main ones.

Comments on race

According to records from the judicial performance commission, Draper admitted to making statements that have been called “irrelevant” and “inappropriate” by other judges who reviewed his decisions on a 2023 case.

In February that year, the defense in a sexual harassment case Draper presided over was seeking a new trial. A jury had reached a verdict earlier, putting them on the hook for $10 million.

During a hearing, Draper brought up his personal views on interracial mixing and Black history, according to excerpts of the court transcripts. Draper told LAist these comments were intended to convince the two sides to “make a reasonable settlement.”

According to the transcripts, Draper used the terms “coal black” and “light brown” to describe Black skin tones. Draper defended his statements, telling LAist he viewed the comments as “almost like describing what color dress you’re wearing today.”

“Now, why did I say it? Race was not involved in the case, except that almost everybody was Black,” he said.

The commission said the comments at issue reflected “bias, prejudice, or harassment.” Draper’s written response to the charges said the dialogue had been taken “wholly out of context.” He told LAist he “ wasn’t talking about a bias for or against” and added he “probably won’t use the word ‘black’ ever” again if re-elected.

“Do I imagine I’ll continue to make comments about appearance? No,” he said. “I probably won’t.”

Women in the workplace

The same day of the 2023 hearing, Draper brought the all-women legal team into his chambers, according to records, where he made other comments that the commission alleges violated judicial ethics.

During the conversation, he told them a story about how male attorneys used to tell female secretaries “you better be able to f*** better than you can type.” Draper told LAist his comments have been misconstrued to sound like he was bragging about behavior at his last law firm. In fact, he said, he was referring to how other firms had “that attitude towards secretaries” when he started practicing law.

“I was so proud of the country [because] now it wouldn’t happen at all,” he said.

His comments and other issues ultimately led to the California Court of Appeal to overturn the verdict and order a new trial. Draper is also alleged to have touched a lawyer’s hair during proceedings in that case without reason, which he testified before the special masters hearing did not happen.

Other allegations cited by the commission involve multiple comments Draper has admitted to making about women in the courthouse in 2022 and 2023, according to records and LAist’s interview with him. The commission said these statements violated judicial ethics, which Draper disputes.

In one instance, Draper told his presiding judge she “looked cute” when she was mad, according to records. Another time he called a woman involved in a case before him “quite attractive” in a “global way.”

Draper told LAist the language he used was “not a come-on” and that he was “trying to make them feel good about themselves.”

“ I’m not going to walk around with my handkerchief in my mouth. I can just say, ‘Hey, you’re looking cute today,’ and people understand that,” he said. “But I’m not going to be walking around the court picking out the cute ones and telling them they’re cute.”

Leave, email and other issues

Draper has also been charged with allegedly not following his courthouse leadership’s directives.

When he was placed on involuntary leave in March 2023, according to the commission, Draper continued to do administrative work on cases despite receiving verbal and written directives to not access the courthouse and its resources.

Draper told LAist his supervisors were aware that his work was continuing because he was emailing them about it.

“They understood what I was doing, and they approved it by not speaking up,” he said.

Draper also testified that he wasn’t immediately told not to work while on leave. The commission said Draper wasn’t “candid” when he testified to that.

Judge Robert Draper on the first day of his hearing at the California Court of Appeal building in downtown Los Angeles on April 27.

(

Cato Hernández

/

LAist

)

The commission also cited problematic emails Draper admitted to sending from his court email address, according to records and his testimony. This included allegations that Draper sent files including nude photos from a confidential court case to people not authorized to receive them under state code.

In June 2023, Draper sent an email to commission staff and other Superior Court judges with various materials, according to records. The attachments included details from a July 2017 confidential child abuse case.

The case involved child sexual abuse allegations with a public figure. Draper emailed nude photos from the case files of children bathing, according to records and his testimony.

One of the recipients of the email with nude photo attachments was retired Judge Lance Ito — best known for presiding over the O.J Simpson murder case in 1995. Ito testified to not being personally acquainted with Draper at the time and called the email “unusual.” Draper testified that the email blast was intended to show his legal contributions and that he is authorized under statute to consult with other judges. He said he copied Ito on the thread because of his leadership role in teaching judges.

Draper also emailed photos of himself “from behind without clothes” to the commission and other judges, according to records. He testified that this was to show his colleagues proof of an injury.

In another charge, the commission said Draper has not cooperated with its ethics inquiry that started in 2022 — such as repeatedly missing deadlines — and has been disrespectful to commission staff. Draper told LAist the commission’s investigation was more like an inquisition because they didn’t interview him before the hearing.

“ That is a big problem with the way the CJP operates,” he said. “They’re not there to help judges. They’re kinda trying to catch judges.”

An endorser speaks out

Kimberly Repecka is one of four judges who have endorsed Draper for re-election. She’s a prior public defender who’s known Draper for about 10 years and testified in his hearing last month.

She told LAist people have latched on to ageist narratives and that his character is being misrepresented. According to Repecka, it’s common for older judges to share “war stories.”

Repecka defended Draper’s reasoning for bringing up race in the sexual harassment case.

“I think most of us most of the time view it exactly how Judge Draper said he intended it: an attempt to connect on a more human level and remind ourselves that there’s a world bigger than the courtroom and case we’re in,” she said.

Repecka told LAist she wouldn’t use the same words he used to talk about skin color in the courtroom. She would be concerned it could cause discomfort.

“ As a white person, I would be pretty careful about how I address that if it seems relevant to the case itself,” she said.

Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School well-versed in judicial ethics, described it as a “real stretch” to view Draper’s comments on race and appearance as appropriate under any circumstances. Levenson said she can’t imagine other judges talking like this.

“There’s a lot of training for judges that has happened in the last decade about how you don’t talk about race unless it is a relevant issue,” she said, “and you especially don’t use some of the terms that Judge Draper was using in these hearings.”

Judges need to watch what they say in a courtroom because they need to not only be fair, but appear to be fair, Levenson said.

“He has the ethical obligation to be impartial and how he demonstrates that he’s being impartial is going to be evaluated by how he acts and what he says in the courtroom,” she said. “If you take his words at face value, there certainly would be reason to question how he’s treating people in that courtroom.”

Levenson has reviewed the hearing’s rough transcripts, the charges and Draper’s filed answer to them. She said it appears the commission “bent over backwards” to  give him a fair chance during their “robust” process.

What comes next 

The next step is for the special masters to put together a report of their conclusions for the commission members, which Draper will have a chance to respond to. The special masters won’t make recommendations about discipline.

That choice rests with the commission members. Remember, they brought these charges against Draper and will decide the outcome, likely in a couple of months. Among the options: The commission members could clear him, admonish or censure him, or remove him from office.

Loyola Marymount University is an underwriting sponsor of LAist. Like other funders, it has no influence on coverage.

Hearings being held this week could decide whether California continues to have a say over what happens in federal waters off the state’s coast.

It’s part of the Trump administration’s efforts to supercharge industrial activities, including offshore drilling, rocket launches and desalination plants along California’s coast. At a hearing Monday at a Santa Monica hotel and at a news conference beforehand, speaker after speaker decried any effort that would allow the federal government to revoke California's ability to manage its coast.

A federal law called the Coastal Zone Management Act gives states with coastlines the right to review and veto projects that may conflict with state policies and economies. The law was signed by President Richard Nixon after a devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara and is credited with launching the modern environmental movement.

More than 50 years later, the federal government has called for a detailed review of California's compliance with the 1972 law.

In a May social media post, the Trump administration said California is standing in the way of economic progress and called the state’s coastal management practices “obstructionist” and “environmental extremism.”

California officials, including state Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, dispute that, saying the state approves federal initiatives 96% of the time.

“ Never before in the five-decade history of this federal act has this sudden baseless review taken place on any state's coastal management program, and never before in the history of this act has a coastal management program ever been revoked,” Crowfoot said at a news conference in Santa Monica on Monday.  ”This federal administration is bent on industrializing our coast.”

The hearings, which are being administered by NOAA, could result in the federal government decertifying California’s rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act. A decision to do so would almost certainly be challenged in court, experts say.

That possibility has prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to call on Californians to submit public comments on the issue.

“Give the Trump administration an earful,” Newsom said in a statement.

The hearings this week are solely for public comment. The review “seeks any new input from relevant stakeholders regarding spaceport infrastructure, offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, desalination projects, and undersea cables,” according to a notice in the federal register. 

Such reviews have happened before — in 2024 a draft review by NOAA found the state’s coastal agencies had properly carried out the CZMA. The review, however, was not finalized due to the change in administration.

The latest review comes after the Trump administration gutted NOAA staff and funding. It has also aggressively worked to expand drilling off the California coast, while at the same time using taxpayer dollars to pay offshore wind companies to abandon their energy projects — something L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath highlighted at the Monday news conference.

“ L.A. County will soon achieve 100% renewable and reliable electricity. This is the change that we want to see,” she said. “Meanwhile, the Trump administration is recklessly starting foreign wars and skyrocketing the price at the pump.”

L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath also spoke Monday at the news conference ahead of the NOAA hearing in Santa Monica.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

Tina Calderon, Gabrielino Tongva and Chumash culture bearer, speaks at Monday's news conference.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

Horvath is part of a coalition of local, state, tribal, environmental, legal and business leaders who are calling the review a “takeover” of state and local rights.

Orange County resident Grant Bixby, who founded the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, pointed out at the news conference that offshore drilling makes up a tiny fraction of the state’s coastal economy, which generates between $44 billion and $50 billion a year, according to NOAA.

"Should we put 99% of the other employment at risk for the benefit of one dirty industry?” Bixby said.

Bixby recalled how the 2021 Huntington Beach oil spill turned the beaches into a “ghost town.”

The NOAA hearing was held in a ballroom at the Santa Monica Hilton.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

Among the speakers at the news conference and hearing, a clear theme emerged: The coast is an integral part of being a Californian, whether you’re lucky enough to live beachside or you live inland and have a favorite spot to call your own on hot summer days.

“The point is that we all love our beautiful saltwaters,” said Tina Calderon, Gabrielino Tongva and Chumash culture bearer, at the news conference. “These are sacred waters, and it's up to us to be the voice. It's up to us to cause no more human harm. We've done enough.”

Jackie, the bald eagle whose livestreamed life with her partner Shadow won the hearts of fans worldwide, has died, rescuers announced Monday.

The famous raptor, believed to be 14 years old, was receiving intensive care at the Ojai Raptor Center for severe anemia. She ultimately succumbed to her condition after a team of veterinarians struggled for weeks to figure out what was causing it.

Jackie remained critically ill despite receiving oxygen therapy, supportive treatment and around-the-clock monitoring. 

"We know this news will be deeply felt by the many thousands of people around the world who have followed her journey, hoped alongside us, prayed for her, and supported the people caring for her,” the Ojai Raptor Center said in an Instagram post. “Our team is heartbroken. It has been an extraordinary privilege to care for her."

Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that launched the popular nest livestream in 2015, confirmed the news on social media.

“It is with great sadness and heavy hearts, to bring you the latest update from Ojai Raptor Center,” the nonprofit said to its roughly 1.3 million Facebook followers. “Please be kind to yourself, to others, to the FOBBV team and to those at the Ojai Raptor Center. Soar free Jackie…”

What happened to her?

The rescue center said on social media Sunday that she was “critically ill,” “unstable” and still in an "extremely serious” condition.

She was getting oxygen therapy, supportive treatment and around-the-clock care from vets and specialists across the country. But her red blood cell levels continued to drop well below normal after rebounding a bit after she was rescued.

Jackie was rescued in July by Big Bear’s Dana Point Park after a brief fight with two other eagles. Jackie was weak, vulnerable, underweight and unable to fly, according to the Ojai Raptor Center.

The center said the fight is likely what left her grounded, but her condition suggests she had been sick for some time.

How Jackie’s Big Bear saga started

Jackie was the matriarch of the famous Big Bear bald eagle nest since around 2017. She’s believed to be the first bald eagle chick hatched in Big Bear Valley in recent history, according to the nonprofit.

The pair believed to be her parents, Ricky and Lucy, left the area around 2016. The young Jackie then started hanging out in their old nest, where the livestream camera had been installed.

Jackie took on her first mate, a bald eagle known as Mr. B, and laid her first clutch of eggs in the nest the following season. Shadow came into the picture in the summer of 2018, refusing to leave until Mr. B eventually flew away from the area, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley.

Jackie and Shadow were mates ever since. They successfully raised six chicks together — Sandy and Luna this season, Sunny and Gizmo last year, Spirit in 2022 and Simba in 2019.

Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.

A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House elections and single-member congressional districts and instead moving toward proportional representation, a system that elects multiple representatives in a single district in rough proportion to a party's vote share.

Earlier this summer, about 500 democracy and legal experts sent a letter to Congress urging members to consider proportional representation as a solution to the redistricting brinksmanship set off by President Donald Trump last year.

"There should be little doubt that the single-member district system is failing to deliver fair and representative outcomes," they wrote. "We urge Congress to adopt a proportional system of representation, solving the gerrymandering problem at its source."

According to the poll conducted by the advocacy group Fix Our House and liberal think tank New America, half of 1,000 respondents said they support proportional representation, with nearly a quarter opposed. A third of those who participated said they were not sure whether they supported it or not.

Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, said he was surprised to see how much backing there is for proportional representation, despite the idea being fairly obscure in the United States.

"It really did shock me how supportive people were of the various principles of proportional representation across the board," he told NPR.

While support was highest among younger, more educated, more left-leaning voters, Drutman found that 6 in 10 Trump voters who have an opinion on proportional representation said they back it, too.

American voters want more political parties

Pollsters also walked respondents through some of the tradeoffs of proportional representation — including that it can lead to multiple parties having to find a way to work together.

"For every one of those questions, people prefer the proportional system with multiple parties," Drutman said, "even if it leads to a coalition government that is maybe not quite as efficient."

He said voters also weren't very concerned when asked about the possibility of proportional representation leading to some more extreme political parties.

"One thing people said is they already think the parties are pretty extreme right now," Drutman explained. "So that's not quite the fear that some in the political class think it would be."

Jocelyn Kiley, director of political research at the Pew Research Center, said voters writ large have been in a "prolonged period of disaffection with politics and the political system."

She said Pew has found there is a lot of openness to reform, with nearly 70% of respondents to its polls saying they wish, at least somewhat, there were more political parties to choose from.

Kiley said detailed knowledge of what any election reform would look like is rare among voters. And she said that when many reforms "move from theory to practice," they often hit some resistance.

"People want to understand exactly how that reform will impact them," she said.

Room for a national conversation

Drutman told NPR the new poll numbers mark a starting point for what could be a national conversation about how to break out of the country's two-party system.

"People are dissatisfied," he said. "People are frustrated. People don't have a language for how to talk about alternatives because they haven't really heard all that much about the alternatives, because we haven't had a national conversation about the alternatives yet. So, there's a lot of room to have that conversation."

Drutman said only about a quarter of the respondents were aware that there are alternatives to a two-party system, and even fewer people could name an alternative when pressed.

In fact, only about 2% of the participants in the poll could name proportional representation off the top of their heads, said Dustin Wahl, executive director of Fix Our House,

"But when asked about the kind of underlying values beneath it and the component parts, there was widespread support from all across the political spectrum," Wahl said. "And that's not something we would have expected to see necessarily four years ago, for instance. But as the problems grow, the desire for solutions grows, as well."

Proportional representation is currently the most widely used electoral system among the world's democracies. Wahl points out that the U.S., along with the likes of Canada and Australia, has a system that was abandoned long ago by other countries.

"Arguably the only reason we don't use proportional representation is because it wasn't used anywhere in the world at the time of [America's] founding," he said. "And we just kept doing elections the same way."

The poll also found a majority support (54%) for expanding the House, with 150 new members.

There are bills in Congress, with all Democratic co-sponsors, that would study or move the U.S. to a system of proportional representation, but Wahl said any bill that doesn't include expanding the House is "politically dead in the water" because without expansion, lawmakers have to choose to potentially vote themselves out of office.

"That [150-seat expansion] gives you enough of a cushion so that members, incumbents know that they're very likely to hold on to their seats," he said. "It wouldn't run into the problem, at all, of candidates or of sitting members of Congress thinking that they're going to lose their seats because their elections would be totally untouched."
Copyright 2026 NPR