One of the first methods of recourse litigants believe they have is the Commission on Judicial Performance, an oversight organization in California.
According to the CJP website:
The Commission on Judicial Performance, established in 1960, is the independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges, pursuant to article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution.
The commission’s mandate is to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system. While the majority of California’s judges are committed to maintaining the high standards expected of the judiciary, an effective method of disciplining judges who engage in misconduct is essential to the functioning of our judicial system. Commission proceedings provide a fair and appropriate mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.
But, we know the CJP fails to do anything to provide true oversight to the judiciary:
The CJP admits that less than 2% of all complaints filed by average California litigants or their family and friends have resulted in the discipline of our state’s judges, in a 20 year report. This is a disturbing statistic that proves the need to reform the state’s only judicial oversight agency, which was created back in 1961 in large part to “protect the public.” The CJP is clearly failing in its mission. – source
Litigants have claimed that the CJP is corrupt, and notifies judges not only that they have a complaint, but which litigants have made the complaint. Others have also claimed that on the rare occasions the CJP decides to visit a courtroom to investigate a complaint, they notify the judge of their presence.