![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Nov 2024 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices
It’s that time again. We’re closing in on the general election. Sample ballots are starting to go out. As people are already starting to make up their minds, I figured I should try to get this out as early as I could. Every election, I do a detailed ballot analysis of my sample ballot. This is where I examine each candidate and share my conclusions, and invite you to convince me to vote for the other jerk. Because this is a long ballot, I’m splitting this analysis into a few chunks (note: links may not be available until all segments are posted):
- State and National Offices (excluding judges)
- County and City (Los Angeles) Local Offices (excluding judges)
- Local and State Measures (nee Propositions)
- Judicial Offices (County and State)
- Summary
Note: This analysis is NOT presented in the same order as the Sample Ballot (the ballot order makes no sense). I’ve attempted instead to present things in more logical order.
This part covers all the judgeships on the ballot:
️
Judge of the Superior Court (of Los Angeles)
The judgeships are an interesting beast. California law requires judges to be confirmed, but only if there are multiple candidates (i.e., you don’t need to vote when there is only one candidates for a seat). So the seats we see are typically the offices where either (a) a judge is retiring, opening up a competitive slot, or (b) seats where someone thinks the judges are vulnerable. For those interested in being judges, evidently there’s a “game” in picking the right office where you have the right competition. Most voters don’t understand this, and just use an endorsement sheet to determine how to vote. For reference, here’s the link to the LA County Bar Association ratings (full report).
Superior Court, Office № 39
He is a former mayor of Manhattan Beach and was an aide to Supv. Don Knabe. He has also had his own law practice and has specialized in parole law and adjudication. He was rated Qualified by the LACBA. There was a minor kerfuffle over his ballot designation (they disallowed “Mayor”). It is unclear whether this qualifies him to be a judge. The LA Times praised his diversity of experience.
Turner is a trial attorney for the Los Angeles County Deputy Public Defender, and has been for 16 years. He was rated Qualified by the LACBA. He is seemingly endorsed by LA Progressive. MetNews, in their lukewarm endorsement of Lee, wrote “Turner and his two cohorts—Ericka Wiley and La Shae Henderson—running in their respective races as the “Defenders of Justice,” are staging no campaigns other than that put on by La Defensa, a tool of Tides Advocacy which funds left-of-center (including extremist) movements. Dominated by their sponsors, they are little different from candidates in days gone by who were tied to political machines.” I think that comment is a bit slanted and beneath MetNews, which should focus on qualifications and temperament.
Conclusion
The Times went with Napoliatano based on his breath of experience, but indicated both would be good. I think the Superior Court needs a mix of both sides of the courtroom: Public Defenders and Deputy DAs. That is yet another aspect of diversity. So for this seat, I’m going with Turner: ⚫ George A. Turner Jr.
Superior Court, Office № 48
Rose is a Deputy DA with 30 years of experience. She was rated Well Qualified by the LACBA. She was endorsed by MetNews, who said “She has the background—as a Riverside deputy district attorney from 1991-94 and a prosecutor here since 1994—and possesses maturity, poise, and intelligence.” They also noted that in her latest annual office review (dated Dec. 28, 2022), she attained the highest possible rating, one that has become nearly impossible to gain: “Far Exceeded Expectations (Outstanding).”
Ericka Wiley has worked as a Deputy Public Defender for more than twenty years in Los Angeles. She was rated Qualified by the LACBA. She is endorsed by LA Progressive and is part of the “Defenders of Justice” slate. MetNews dismissed her with “financed by monied interests with radical leanings.” They do show their bias sometimes.
Conclusion
In this case, although I might like to put another public defender on the bench, the qualifications of Rose tip the scales of justice in her direction: ⚫ Renee Rose
Superior Court, Office № 97
Ransom has 18 years as a Deputy District Attorney and 17 years as a dispatcher for the LA County Sheriff’s Department, She was rated Well Qualified by the LACBA. She has a large number of judicial and other endorsements, including Democratic clubs (which blunt the progressive nature of her opponent, Henderson). In her MetNews endorsement, they note that a member of the Superior Court wrote that “Deputy District Attorney Sharon Ransom has extensive trial experience, is respected by judges, judicial staff, opposing counsel, and her colleagues. She exudes all the necessary characteristics to be a judge. She is smart, fair, has integrity, patience, compassionate, has a great work ethic.” They also note that in her last three office performance evaluations, Ransom was rated “Exceeded Expectations (Very Good).”
La Shae Henderson has served as a bilingual lawyer for the Los Angeles County Public Defender for eighteen years working in various areas of criminal defense, but is currently in private practice. She was rated Qualified by the LACBA. She is endorsed by LA Progressive and is part of the “Defenders of Justice” slate. MetNews, predictably, said “As to her candidacy, the most polite reaction we can offer is: “Uhg.””. They found other problems. They didn’t like that the office address she lists with the State Bar is a Post Office box number in Diamond Bar. They didn’t like her ballot designation as she left the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office in 2023. They don’t like that she was on inactive status for 3 months. They don’t like her backers, saying they fund “left-wing, in some instances extremist, groups and causes.” Again, MetNews, your slant is shining through.
Conclusion
Although I appreciate what the Defenders of Justice is trying to do, running your candidate against two candidates with strong Democratic endorsements defeats your purpose. Henderson is no match for the other candidates. I’m going to go with the MetNews and side with Ransom, just because more women on the bench is a good thing: ⚫ Sharon Ransom
Superior Court, Office № 124
◯ Emily Theresa Spear INC
She has been on the bench since 2019. She was rated Not Qualified by the LACBA. In Sep 2023, she received a public admonishment from the Committee on Judicial Performance for a variety of misconduct. Surprisingly, she has a small number of endorsements. MetNews, in their endorsement of her opponent, noted that the admonishment “points to instances of misconduct reflecting “a lack of integrity,” entailing lying and conniving. Also, she has with some frequency ducked out of the courthouse early or not shown up for work, without authorization or explanation.” This is a clear “next…”
She has been a public defender since 2018. She has lots of endorsements. She was rated Not Qualified by the LACBA. She is endorsed by MetNews, who write “We’ve met with her. She strikes us as straight forward and candid. Also, she has strong communication skills. We’ve asked around. No issue is raised as to her truthfulness. Or her industriousness. In response to our request, Repecka furnished her last three annual office performance reviews. There are no negative comments.” However, her reputation among bench officers is not altogether favorable. That’s not unsurprising for a public defender advocating for clients.
Conclusion
Spear has behaved poorly and doesn’t deserve to be on the bench: ⚫ Kimberly Repecka
Superior Court, Office № 135
Mac is a Lt. Colonel in the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG), and a Deputy District Attorney since 2013. From 2015 to 2018, he was assigned as a felony trial deputy. He joined the Hardcore Gang Unit in 2018. For the last five years, he has prosecuted murders in LA. He was rated Well Qualified by the LACBA. He has a large number of endorsements, including Democratic organizations. He has the MetNews endorsement, where they note “He is articulate, thoughtful, and knowledgeable. That, coupled with the sort of demeanor one would hope for in a judge, renders him well suited to judicial service.”
She has a slick website. She has over 30 years as a Deputy DA. She was rated Well Qualified by the LACBA. She also has a large number of endorsements. Back in 2022, MetNews had some disagreements with her ballot designation. They clearly still hold those disagreements. In their endorsement of Mac, they wrote: “Huerta is more experienced as a prosecutor than he, having served as a deputy district attorney from Aug. 17, 1987 to March 26, 2021, and again since last Aug. 16. She could do the job of a judge. But, in our view, she would not perform in that role as deftly as Mac.” That’s even if they disregard their disagreements.
Conclusion
The issue MetNews finds fault with for Huerta is not of consequence to me. Both seem equal, but I’ll go with the MetNews endorsement based on demeanor and the JAG experience: ⚫ Steven Yee Mac
Superior Court, Office № 137
Blount served as a legal research attorney for the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office’s Appellate Division, then returned to the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office where she had worked as a paralegal. Blount handles child dependency and abuse cases, including appeals. She was rated Well Qualified by the LACBA. She has a fair number of endorsements, including Democratic organizations. She has the MetNews endorsement; they note that, although not in court on a daily basis, “she does deal with the law “every single day,” and appears to have a breadth of knowledge of the law. Meaningfully, her bearing inspires respect. She is confident without being arrogant; that is to say, she possesses ideal “judicial temperament.” We do not doubt that she would perform admirably as a judge.””
Herrera is an attorney in private practice, who is also a professor of law at Texas A&M. She was rated Qualified by the LACBA. She has a fair number of endorsements, although the organizational ones are unions. Of her, MetNews writes: “She acknowledges that she has not handled a matter in the Los Angeles Superior Court since 2009 or 2010. Despite being an educator, and having a law degree from Harvard, she is lacking, surprisingly, but markedly, in communication skills.”
Conclusion
In this battle between the well-qualified candidate, only one has clear court experience and strong endorsements: ⚫ Tracey M. Blount
This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Nov 2024 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.