Targeting San Diego's judge positions: an update

The May 31, 2010 entry described the effort to replace four incumbent judges in San Diego county with four candidates that promised to follow fundamentalist Christian principles.  In last week's elections, all four incumbents kept their positions with wide margins:

Each of the victorious judges got more than 60 percent of the vote in his or her race, and several saw that wide margin as a rejection of the Better Courts Now effort to influence the makeup of the bench.
“I think it’s confirmation that the electorate recognizes the importance of judicial independence,” said [Judge Lantz] Lewis, who has been on the bench for two decades.

But the organization behind the challenges is still talking tough:

But Trask [one of the four candidates] said the totals show the difficulty of unseating an incumbent judge, and not a rejection of Better Courts Now.
“I think it has a lot to do with unseating an incumbent,” he said of the vote totals. “It’s always an uphill task.” Despite the across the board defeat he said Better Courts Now will likely not go away.
“I think if anything this is probably only the beginning,” he said.

Knowledgeable observers are in agreement that this could indeed be the beginning of a trend:

But Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school said Better Courts Now supporters leave the impression their goal is part of a long-term strategy.
"These groups are committed and are not going to go away quietly," Skaggs said. "If they continue to be unsuccessful and struggle to make progress in actually getting their favorite candidates elected, it may be that the movement runs out of gas."

The humanist position is to oppose founding any government actions, including court case rulings, on revealed truth rather than observed and reasoned truth.