I've never been a fan of recalls. Every election year we get to go inside a private booth and vote for the man or woman we think will best represent our values and beliefs. We base our decisions on promises made during speeches, television commercials, radio sound bites, or newspaper articles and advertisements.

Sometimes we just like their hair, which is why we rarely see bald governors and presidents (there is a reason our country is in the toilet ... not enough bald leaders).

Every once in awhile we actually elect someone who does what he promised to do, but, no matter what, we always get the government we deserve.

That's why I don't support the proposed recall of Nevada County Judges Candace Heidelberger and Julie McManus. We heard last week that there are plans to file paperwork to start a recall petition against the two jurists.

Judge McManus, they say, should be removed from office because she's been absent almost longer than she's actually served. And she continues to collect her paychecks, which total more than $175,000 per year. That means taxpayers are having to also pay for her replacement because the judicial system can't simply wait for McManus to return.

In paperwork the group plans to file with the county elections officials, recall proponents also expressed displeasure with the way McManus managed her Family Law Court when she was able to show up for work. “McManus is widely considered to be an angry, unpredictable judge,” the petition read. “She is notorious for pressuring parents ... (She) routinely told parents that if their differences were not resolved in mediation, their children might commit suicide or be placed in foster care. The simple truth is that McManus cannot be allowed to return to the bench.”

McManus was appointed to the bench in December 2005 and ran unopposed in June, 2008. Her term doesn't expire until 2014.

But her continued absences — she's been on her second medical leave since last March — is costing taxpayers $715.15 every day a substitute judge is brought in.

If McManus is unable to do the job she's being paid good money to do, she ought to resign.

Judge Heidelberger is being targeted essentially based on one decision. On Dec. 6, the judge sentenced a child molester to a year in jail and five years probation, rather than the six-year prison sentence she could have delivered. While that was a horrible decision, the District Attorney's office shares some of that blame for not charging the admitted molester correctly. If we recalled every judge for a perceived bad decision, our judicial system would collapse. Heidelberger was elected after running unopposed in June 2010 and her term does not expire until 2016 (judges serve six-year “sentences”).

Not many lawyers want to run against a sitting judge in small towns because if they lose they have to stand before the judge they sought to replace, which makes for one of those awkward moments in life. That's why judges can typically stay in office for as long as they want, or until they build up a pension large enough to support a daily golf game.

I assume Judge Tom Anderson wasn't targeted because he's running for re-election next year and may actually face opposition. His decision to grant probation to a child molester was even more egregious than Heidelberger's. In that case, Anderson granted probation to a 64-year-old child molester who started molesting his victim when she was under 10 years old. Anderson could have given the creature up to 16 years in prison, but opted for the far lesser sentence because the creature's family and “experts” convinced the judge that he deserved leniency.

Ask Jaycee Dugard what she thinks about California's child protective “experts.” The monster who kept her caged in his backyard was supposed to have been “rehabilitated.”

“You probably deserve state prison,” Anderson told the man during sentencing earlier this month. “This is a very generous sentence.”

I'm sure all those young girls who are being abused today would agree, probably deciding it might not be a good idea to speak up.

Anderson has been described as a “compassionate” judge, which is fine if you believe that molesters and repeat offenders are simply in need of some group hugs and counseling, but not so good if you are a victim, or law enforcement official who is tired of arresting and prosecuting scumballs just to watch the judge cut them loose.

And if they are angry enough they will find someone to run against Anderson and then we'll see if voters agree.

That's what makes this system of ours so cool.

So how about we drop this recall effort and focus instead on working on more constructive remedies?

For starters, let's convince McManus that it's probably time to step down. Then if you don't like the job Anderson is doing, vote for someone else next year, provided someone else runs.

And ... finally ... if you don't like the job Heidelberger is doing, send her a letter, or message, reminding her that there are very few crimes worse than child molestation and if she doesn't agree we'll see her at election time a few years down the road.

Jeff Ackerman is the editor/publisher of The Union. Contact him at (530) 477-4299, jackerman@theunion.com, or 464 Sutton Way, Grass Valley 95945.