![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahwyguy
Here in California (and in Los Angeles in particular), we have an election coming up. You know what that means: 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 – unposted segments are marked [PENDING]):
- Governor of California
- Other State and National Offices (excluding judges)
- County and City (Los Angeles) Local Offices (excluding judges)
- 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: Office № 2 ❦ № 14 ❦ № 39 ❦ № 60 ❦ № 64 ❦ № 65 ❦ № 66 ❦ № 81 ❦ № 87 ❦ № 116 ❦ № 131 ❦ № 141 ❦ № 176 ❦ № 181 ❦ № 196
🗳️
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).
Useful References:
- LA Times, “Your guide to the L.A. County Superior Court judge elections: every competitive race“
- LA County Bar Association, “Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee Announces 2026 Ratings“
- Law Degree Information
◊
Superior Court, Office № 2
◯ Robert S. Draper ⭐INC
Robert Shelley Draper received both his B.A. and J.D. from University of California, Berkeley. After passing the California bar in 1968, he worked at O’Melveny & Myers LLP as an associate from 1968-1976 and then as partner from 1976-2005. His practice focused on litigation, representing clients such as IBM, Paramount Studios, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Lockheed Martin. From 2005 until he was appointed to the bench in 2012 by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., he practiced at the Law Offices of Robert S. Draper.
The LA County Bar rated Robert Draper as “Not Qualified”.
According to the LA Times, 84-year-old Judge Robert Draper is seeking reelection despite having spent the last three years relegated to a room at the Santa Monica courthouse without a computer or caseload, which two other judges described to The Times as a “closet.” In 2023, then-Presiding Justice Samantha Jessner said Draper was “unable to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a judge” due to deteriorating mental and physical health, according to a letter she sent to the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance. Draper denied all wrongdoing in an interview with The Times, and said that although he has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, he remains fit for the bench. He has also been accused of sexual harassment and making improper and biased comments by the judicial commission. He is contesting those claims. A hearing that could result in his removal began the last week of April and is expected to last into early May.
Regarding the “improper and biased comments”, LAist notes Draper is accused of making statements about race in court that weren’t pertinent to the case, and sending inappropriate photos to colleagues. You can read the Notice of Formal Proceedings here.
But wait, there’s more! This one gets even stranger!
Metnews, which usually does reliable reports of judge foibles, has an editorial where they recommend voting for this unqualified judge. Their rationale? They think the opponent is unqualified, and would rather wait for the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”). They believe it is “inevitable that the judge will be removed from office, whether on the basis of misconduct or disability. While Gov. Gavin Newsom has made some questionable judicial appointments, any selection by him would follow scrutiny by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and would be bound to result in Draper’s successor being someone with greater potential than […] the election challengers.” Metnews does acknowledge all the problems that Draper has.
So what does Metnews not like about Valbuena? They don’t like that Valbuena’s campaign is being run by the Mosaic Political Action Committee, which guides and funds Democratic candidates. They don’t like that Valbuena declares on his website “I’m running for Judge because too many people no longer believe equal justice exists in our courts—in part because the judiciary does not always reflect the communities it serves.” They don’t like that Valbuena points out that he would “be among the first openly gay people of color elected to the Los Angeles Superior Court.” Metnews sees no merit in the contention that someone should be elected because of such considerations. Of course, Metnews refuses to mention what Valbuena’s qualifications might be, other than the fact he is a young district attorney.
Valbuena graduated from Indiana University – Kelly School of Business with a BS degrees, and received his JD from the George Washington School of Law in 2011. He was an Associate at Shook, Hardy, & Bacon LLP, and then became a Deputy DA in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Presently, he is an Adjunct Professor at International American University; a LGBTQ+ Commissioner for the LA County Board of Supervisors, and has been a Deputy DA for the LA County DA’s office for over 9 years. He was admitted to the Bar in 2014, license #301853. The LA County Bar rated Tal Valbuena as “Qualified”.
He has the endorsement of the Daily News. They note Valbuena, an immigrant from Pakistan, has experience with both juvenile and mental health cases. Prior to his time at the Los Angeles County DA’s office, he worked in civil litigation. “Together, these experiences have allowed me to see the justice system from multiple perspectives and understand both the legal and human dimensions of the cases that come before the court.” The Santa Monica Democrats have also endorsed him. Actually, he has a large number of endorsements.
📋 Conclusion
On this one, I disagree with MetNews’ “wait and see” approach. Valbuena is qualified, and it is good to have some folks that understand multiple perspective on the bench.
Conclusion: ⚫ Tal Valbuena
◊
Superior Court, Office № 14
The LA County Bar rated Angie Christides as “Qualified”. She was admitted to the bar in 2003, license #227741. She received her law degree from Loyola in 2003.
Christides has more than two decades of experience as a deputy district attorney. She spent eight years — five in the Hardcore Gang Investigation Unit — conducting serious felony trials, primarily in Compton. Her case log includes more than 25 murder trials and two death penalty cases. Christides previously served in the Long Beach Superior Court, where she ran the veterans court program, reviewing requests for alternative sentencing and mental health diversion petitions. (LAT)
Metnews has an interesting story about her actions in a murder prosecution, with the allegation lingering that she accused two Long Beach detectives of withholding information that, had she reviewed the preliminary hearing transcript, she would have realized wasn’t so. They walk through the details of the case, concluding “Was Christides a conscientious prosecutor who abided by her obligations under Brady by revealing exculpatory matter as soon as it became available to her, as she portrays? It doesn’t seem so. It appears that she thoughtlessly denigrated two police detectives and misled the court. I can’t imagine that she did so willfully, that is, that she had full recollection of what had come out at the preliminary hearing. Meyer, who presided over that proceeding, didn’t. But Meyer had no obligation to review the preliminary hearing transcript in advance of the trial. Christides did. Beyond besmirching the law enforcement officers through allegations she should, with care, have known to be false, she brought about the “walking” by a man who might have committed a senseless and apparently race-based killing of a 23-year-old Black man. Yes, might. It was determined at a preliminary hearing that probable cause existed for binding Delatorre over for trial. Why did that trial not take place, at which a jury would have determined if guilt had been shown beyond a reasonable doubt? There’s a one-word answer: Christides.”
She has a long list of endorsements on her website. I don’t care about the Democratic groups, but she does have a lot of folks in the legal system endorsing her. Although MetNews endorsed her opponent, they noted: «Her opponent is Angie Christides, also a seasoned prosecutor. One judge terms her a “well-respected 20-year veteran of the DA’s Office.” Another judge comments: “Angie and I were in the DAs office together. I worked with her for about four years. She is hard working, diligent, ethical and fair. I believe she would make a fine judge because she has an exceptional temperament. She is also a yoga instructor which perhaps explains the calm demeanor.” An upper echelon prosecutor says Christides is “motivated, energetic, and pleasant to be around,” carries herself “with confidence,” and seems to know what she’s doing. In her last eight performance evaluations, she received the rating of “Exceeded Expectations (Very Good),” drawing accolades such as “dependable deputy” who “exhibited strong organizational and multi-tasking skills,” “evidenced adaptability” and displayed “loyalty to her colleagues.” Her work product is said to be “always thorough, accurate, and well written.”»
Irene Lee is a Special Assistant with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. She previously served as a Deputy District Attorney for nearly 14 years, and as Deputy County
Counsel for Los Angeles County for over 3 years. She currently serves as the LADA Board Liaison for the AAPI Advisory Board. Lee has twice been honored for domestic violence prosecutions. She regularly trains law enforcement, prosecutors, and community members on matters including domestic violence investigations and prosecutions and how to understand the criminal justice system. She is also deeply committed to advancing language access efforts to ensure that all communities in Los Angeles can better understand and navigate the criminal justice system. She received her law degree from Chicago-Kent in 2007. (LA County DA’s Office)
The LA County Bar rated Irene Lee as “Well Qualified”.
She has a long list of endorsements on her website, including MetNews. MetNews notes: «Irene Lee had become a star player in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office where she worked for nearly 14 years. She skedaddled shortly after George Gascón […] became district attorney in December 2020. Lee went over to the County Counsel’s Office. Gascón lost his 2024 bid for reelection and Lee is now a special assistant to District Attorney Nathan Hochman, a high-level post. In her last two annual performance evaluations before her departure from the D.A.’s Office, Lee was rated “Exceeded Expectations (Very Good). In light of her intelligence, productivity, and temperament, she warrants election to the Los Angeles Superior Court.» In a different article, they noted: “Lee has the endorsements of District Attorney Nathan Hochman and former District Attorneys Steve Cooley and Jackie Lacey, along with 75 Los Angeles Superior Court judges and has a professional campaign consultant, Crystal Litz.”
📋 Conclusion
In this contest, it looks like the bench would benefit from either of these candidates, both qualified, and both with lots of endorsements. I’m going to give the edge to Lee, simply because of her Well Qualified rating. There just doesn’t appear to be anything in her record that indicates a need to go for the slightly-less qualified candidate.
Conclusion: ⚫ Irene Lee
◊
Superior Court, Office № 39
Binh Dang is an attorney and deputy public defender with nearly 20 years of courtroom litigation experience, including more than 100 jury trials and adjudications. Binh earned his undergraduate degree from San Diego State University and later graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2003.
There do not appear to be any relevant MetNews articles.
📋 Conclusion
This one is easy, as Binh Dang is unopposed.
Conclusion: ⚫ Binh Dang
◊
Superior Court, Office № 60
Ann Maurer is the Chief Asst City Attorney at the City of Glendale City Attorney’s Office. She received her JD from Southwestern Law School in 1995, and has a BA in History from U Michigan. She was admitted to the bar in 1995, license #179649.
📋 Conclusion
This one is easy, as Ann Maurer is unopposed.
Conclusion: ⚫ Ann Maurer
◊
Superior Court, Office № 64
Amador earned his law degree from William Howard Taft University in 2001. He was admitted to the bar in 2001, license #214818.
The LA County Bar rated Francisco Amador as “Not Qualified”.
I love what MetNews writes about his website: «What about Amador? To his credit, he has a campaign website. However, it’s one of the most pathetic ones we’ve ever viewed. It’s topped by a large photo of himself, in uniform as a police officer—a former occupation of his—standing beside his mother. We favorably regard law enforcement and motherhood. But how is this germane to his fitness for a judgeship? There is also a photo of him as a Marine. Service in the Marines is highly commendable. But what that has to do with his ability to function on the bench is also puzzling. What does he tell us about his qualifications for the office seeks? Only this: “ I’ve been a California practicing Attorney for the past 24 years.” It must be assumed that if there something impressive about his background, it would be set forth.»
⚫ Maria Ghobadi
Ghobadi earned her law degree from University of the Pacific in 2006. She was admitted to the bar in 2006, license #242945. The LA County Bar rated Maria Ghobadi as “Well Qualified”.
Metnews writes: “Of the three candidates for Office No. 64, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Maria Ghobadi stands out. In her nearly 11 years at her present post, she has handled more than 85 jury trials, 21 of them entailing homicide charges.” They note her overall rating is the top one, rarely awarded: “Far Exceeded Expectations (Outstanding).”
Her campaign website shows a large number of endorsements.
Haymon earned her Bachelor of Science degree from Tuskegee University, graduating Summa Cum Laude with an emphasis in Social Work, Political Science, and Mathematics. She later earned her law degree from Willamette University College of Law in 2001 and is licensed to practice law in both California and Oregon. she has served as an Adjunct Professor at Southwestern Law School, teaching Criminal Procedure and Litigation. She has coached and led winning trial advocacy teams and legal organizations, helping develop disciplined and prepared advocates. She serves as a Board Member of the Women in Leadership program at Southwestern Law School, a certificate program designed to prepare and empower women from all professions to step confidently into leadership roles.
The LA County Bar rated Rhonda Haymon as “Qualified”.
Of Haymon, MetNews writes: «And then there is Haymon. Two years ago, she ran against Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lynn Olson. She was apparently motivated by the fact that Olson had found her in contempt for acting like a sassy brat. In endorsing Olson, we quoted judges as making such comments about Hamon as: “She’s a terrible attorney and would make a horrible judge. She’s not smart and has terrible temperament. I can guarantee that every judge she has appeared before feels this way.” A judge this year says: “I believe you have enough opinions about her from the last time she ran so I do not feel the need to add mine.” Another judge remarks: “Haymon failed in an ill-feted bid to unseat Judge Lynn Olson in 2024, and that failed effort served no useful purpose other than to highlight Haymon’s utter unfitness for a judgeship. Haymon enjoys a well-deserved reputation for being unprepared, loudmouthed, and irrelevant.” A veteran member of her office attributes to Haymon “bad temperament.”»
She has a fair number of endorsements.
📋 Conclusion
Luckily, I don’t have to base my judgement on MetNews’ assessment of Haymon. Ghobadi is the only one rated well qualified, and that’s a sufficient distinction for me.
Conclusion: ⚫ Maria Ghobadi
◊
Superior Court, Office № 65
◯ Justin Clayton
Clayton has been a Deputy Public Defender at the LA County Public Defenders office for 11.5 years. He earned a BA in Criminology at the University of New Mexico in 2006, and a JD at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in 2011. He was admitted to the bar in 2012, license #283282. Coming from the Public Defender’s office, he notes “There’s been a history of the majority of prosecutors—or a type of thought—coming from the bench. I want to add a different perspective.”
The LA County Bar rated Justin Clayton as “Qualified”.
Metnews notes: «Clayton is the deputy in charge of the Public Defender’s Office’s Inglewood branch. His latest office performance evaluation (2024-25) says he “has demonstrated excellent leadership skills in this assignment, while also handling multiple serious felony cases,” adding: “He is a true asset to the operation and to the office.” […] Nonetheless, his overall rating is only “competent.” The previous report termed his performance “very good.” Our expectation is that if he does become a judge, he will be viewed as an outstanding one.». They assess him as a candidate that is ” intelligent, articulate, succinct, and possessed of ideal temperament for the bench”. They given the endorsement edge to Jimenez, but for no reason other than “gut feeling”.
Jimenez is the owner and managing attorney at the Jimenez Law Group. She received a BA in Pre-Law Studies from Western Washington Univers, and a JD from Whittier Law School. She was admitted to the bar in 2003, license #227343.
The LA County Bar rated Chellei Jimenez as “Qualified”.
She has a small number of endorsements.
Metnews notes: «Jimenez has no office evaluations. That’s understandable given that she owns The Jimenez Law Group, APC. Her website says: “As the managing attorney of her own law firm, Chellei has taken hundreds of cases from start to finish and tried more than 300 matters to decision. She knows the law. She knows the pressure of a live courtroom. And she knows the real cost when cases drag on. Time in court means time away from jobs, children, health, and stability. As a judge, she will run an efficient, prepared courtroom that respects people’s lives and moves cases forward.” […] Clayton has been in the courtroom far more often than Jimenez, which is a factor—but while in her law office, Jimenez has not been playing solitaire. She’s been dealing with clients, undertaking legal research, and drafting documents, all broadening her knowledge and skills. Neither had the advantage of education at a top-notch law school. Clayton went to Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego which is not accredited by the American Bar Association (“ABA”). Jimenez has a degree from Whittier Law School in Orange County which did have ABA-approval, but its graduates, as reflected by statistics, had low chances of passing the bar exam, and the school went out of business. What matters most is that after graduating, each proved to be an able lawyer.». They give the endorsement to Jimenez, for no reason other than gut feeling.
Krause is an Partner at Hall Benefits Law, specializing in Executive Compensation, Employee Benefits, and ERISA. In the past, he was General Counsel at California Schools VEBA, a Senior Counsel at Crowell & Moring LLP, a Senior Counsel at Skinner Law Group, and Of Counsel at Jackson Lewis LLP. He has an LL.M. in Tax from New York School of Law, and a JD from Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, and a BA in History from CSUN. He was admitted to the bar in 2006, license #242199.
The LA County Bar rated Samuel Krause as “Qualified”.
His campaign website is quite extensive.
Metnews notes: «Krause tried to use as his ballot designation, “Attorney/Temporary Judge,” which the Registrar-Recorder’s Office initially accepted, but later bounced. Krause knew or should have known that the designation was impermissible.». Metnews loves to pick on folks for their ballot designations. They don’t say much else about Krause, which suprises me as his experience in Benefits Law doesn’t seen that applicable to Superior Court.
Anna Rebecca Slotky Reitano (née Slotky) is an American attorney and former actress. She is perhaps best known for her role as Ruth Ann in the television sitcom The Torkelsons. She was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2009 (license #263383), after graduation with her JD from University of California, Davis. She is currently working as a public defender for Los Angeles County.
The LA County Bar rated Anna Slotky Reitano as “Qualified”.
She has a fair number of endorsements.
Metnews notes: «Reitano is a deputy county counsel who possesses some admirable qualities. She has a strong determination to become a judge and to carry out her duties in that role, should she attain it, conscientiously. But we do have concerns about her. She ran for a Superior Court open seat four years ago. Reitano, then a deputy public defender, was one of four candidates billed as the “Defenders of Justice.” None of the four ran her own campaign. The effort to elect them was staged by a group that funds left-wing causes and election hopefuls. Reitano notes that she, personally, did not take extremist stances. True. But others on the slate did, and the promoters who controlled the operation were far to the left. Each of the four lent support to the others. If Reitano does not share the philosophy of her slate-mates, she should not have merged her identity with theirs, thus impeding confidence in her objectivity should she gain membership on the court. A judge must act with independence, the pawn of no one. Yet, she was not in charge of her 2022 campaign—there actually being no campaign for her apart from that of the Defenders of Justice.». They also pick on her for her ballot designation. I think MetNews is being overly pedantic for both. They are very upset about liberal slates, but I think the effort to improve diversity on the bench (not just color, but background) is important. And they should get over disqualifying someone over the titles. Their focus needs to be the quality of the individual as a judge.
📋 Conclusion
This is a hard one, with four qualified candidates, and MetNews providing little guidance except for its usual nitpicks and biases. I’m eliminating Krause, simply because I don’t think Benefits Law experience is good for the court. The remainder look equally skilled. I’m going to cut out Clayton, simply because of his lack of endorsements. Between Reitano and Jimenez, is think Reitano’s endorsements are stronger. Reitano clearly also has more Superior Court experience as a Public Defender, and serves the goal of getting more Public Defenders on the bench. So, yet again, I’m breaking with the MetNews recommendation
Conclusion: ⚫ Anna Slotky Reitano
◊
Superior Court, Office № 66
Foyer is a Deputy DA with the LA County DA’s office (19 years). He is also an Adjunct Asst. Professor of Technology and Applied Computing Practice at USC (teaching Cyber and Privacy Law), and was a Board Member at the Viterbi School of Engineering IAB. He has a BA in Political Science and Government from York University (2002), and a JD from Southwestern Law School (2005). He was admitted to the bar in 2005, license #239374.
The LA County Bar rated Ben Forer as “Well Qualified”.
MetNews writes: «Forer is a deputy district attorney. Too, he’s a lecturer at USC in cyber law and is an adjunct assistant professor of technology and applied computing practice at that university’s School of Engineering. He writes scholarly articles for various legal journals. Forer is author of a textbook—“Privacy & Cyber Law, Cases and Materials”—as well as a book with a collection of materials including cases and articles, “Law Without Borders: Law in a Cyber Universe.” And he’s an ordained rabbi. This unique candidate is viewed as a man of intellect, with a high degree of competence, coupled with gentleness and an eagerness to serve. He will roll up his sleeves and get done what needs to be accomplished—including shouldering tasks assigned to others, in a spirit of helpfulness, not intrusion. An entry in a District Attorney’s Office performance evaluation tells how a deputy asked for Forer’s help in an embezzlement case in which a reduction to a misdemeanor charge was being contemplated; Forer provided guidance in seeking search warrants for additional information; and, ultimately, without causing disgrace to the assigned deputy, took over. There had been an admitted theft of about $500,000; with information Forer gathered, it emerged that about $5 million had been pilfered.».
Cheryl C. Turner, Esq. has been the managing attorney at Turner & Associates for more than 20 years. Throughout her career, she has served on many community and government boards and commissions. She was first appointed as the area representative to the South Coast Air Quality Management District advocating for clean air in our community. She was then appointed to the Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Authority to promote tourism and the development of convention and exhibition facilities in the City of Los Angeles. During her term with the Authority, she was the Vice-President of its 15 board member commission. She has served as an arbitrator for the Ford Motor Company Consumer Dispute Resolution Board helping consumers to resolve issues involving the purchase, operation, and repair of their Ford vehicles. (AAGLA)
She earned here law degree at USC in 1987 (license #132197). The LA County Bar rated Cheryl Turner as “Qualified”.
MetNews writes: «Turner [is] president of the Board of Directors of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles; she’s served on the Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Authority; she’s been a representative to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. But what is it that she’s done as a lawyer that qualifies her for a seat on the Los Angeles Superior Court? We don’t know. The answer should be set forth by her on her campaign website. We looked. As it happens, she does have a campaign website—but it relates to the bid she had intended to make, as a Democrat, for a state Senate seat. The website says that “she’s managed her own legal practice with an emphasis on civil rights, consumer rights, business, tax, real estate, transportation and law” but mentions nothing beyond that reflecting fitness for a judgeship. Turner also toyed with the prospect of candidacy this year, as a Democrat, for the State Board of Equalization. She’s been a candidate for four offices in the past, each time as a Democrat. She sought a state Senate in 2022, capturing 40.1% of the vote in a November run-off; was a candidate for the Assembly in a 2021 special election, emerging third among six contenders with 9.6% of the ballots; vied with seven others for a state Senate seat in 2021, in a special election, placing fourth, with 5.4% of the votes; garnered 16.9% of the votes as an aspirant for the Board of Equalization in the 2018 primary. The question arises as to why this Democratic Party loyalist, given her desire for a judgeship, has not been granted one by the governor, a Democrat. Gov. Gavin Newsom has appointed her, as a public member, to the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians (on which she no longer serves). Assuming she has asked for a judgeship—she won’t say whether she has—why was she turned down? We know of no basis upon which to conclude that Turner is qualified to sit on the Superior Court other than meeting the state constitutional requisite of licensure in the State Bar for 10 years.». I’m discounting the MetNews complaints about her being a Democratic candidate. Plenty of Democratic attorneys run for both legislative or judgeships.
📋 Conclusion
This one is somewhat of a no-brainer. On one side, we have a private attorney with the Apartment Association of GLA, whose experience doesn’t scream “courtroom” and who is only rated “qualified”. On the other side, we have a well-qualified candidate, who is a Deputy DA, … and who teaches Cyber & Privacy Law… and who is a member of the Cyber Crime Unit… and who is on top of everything else, an ordained Rabbi. Wow. Talk about qualified!
Conclusion: ⚫ Ben Forer
◊
Superior Court, Office № 81
Kapelovitz is a Criminal Law Attorney with the Radical Law Center. He is also CEO, General Counsel, and Filmmaker at Kapelovision. He was a law clear for the US District Court for the Central District of California for 1 year; an Attorney at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP for 1y8mo, and a law clerk in the Public Defenders Office for 4 months. He has a BA in Film and Religious Studies from Wesleyan, and a JD from UCLA School of Law (2009). He was admitted to the bar in 2009, license #268001. He was a candidate for Governor under the Green Party banner in 2021.
The LA County Bar rated Daniel Kapelovitz as “Qualified”.
MetNews writes: «He earned his JD at UCLA, “graduating in the top 10 of his class,” according to his campaign website, which relates: “Before becoming a lawyer, Dan had a successful career in journalism. He was the Features Editor of Hustler Magazine, and wrote more than 100 articles for numerous publications, including the LA Weekly, OC Weekly, Bizarre Magazine, Men’s Edge, and more. At Hustler Magazine, Dan won the Project Censored Award for his reporting on depleted uranium, and was the editorial point man for Larry Flynt’s First Amendment lawsuit against the Pentagon.”»
⚫ David B. Walgren ⭐INC
David B. Walgren is a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in California. He assumed office in 2012. His current term ends on January 4, 2027. Walgren received his undergraduate degree from UCLA and J.D. degree from UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a judge, Walgren served as a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
The LA County Bar rated David B. Walgren as “Exceptionally well qualified”.
MetNews writes: «Walgren has been challenged for reelection by an unaccomplished lawyer who has no law office and likes to run for posts, as he often has, that he can’t possibly win. In endorsing Walgren in few words, we do not mean to imply that the incumbent is undeserving of praise—he is a well-regarded jurist; there is simply no arguable merit to the challenge and it should not be dignified by a lengthy discussion. Dan Kapelovitz alleges that Walgren is biased in favor of the prosecution. If that were so, he would be papered—disqualified via Code of Civil Procedure §70.6 declarations—by the Public Defender’s Office, and he isn’t. Surely there would be Court of Appeal opinions reversing him, reflecting such bias; Kapelovitz points to none. He does make note of a case in which Walgren hiked the bail following a preliminary hearing. Judges have that prerogative. There are instances where they would be remiss if they did not take that action based on the evidence adduced at the hearing. Kapelovitz will not win the election. However, Walgren will be a loser in a sense; despite the existence of a judges’ political action committee, the judge will no doubt spend personal funds on his campaign and will be deprived of peace of mind until the ballots are counted. The challenge is unconscionable.»
📋 Conclusion
In a battle between an incumbent, extremely well qualified jurist and “the editorial point man for Larry Flynt’s First Amendment lawsuit against the Pentagon” who is just qualified, the person who should win is clear.
Conclusion: ⚫ David B. Walgren ⭐INC
◊
Superior Court, Office № 87
Bayne is a Trial Attorney DPD IV at the LA County Public Defender. He also holds patents in the fields of communication, finance, and advertising. He received a JD from Trinity (formerly Simon Greenleaf School of Law) in 1994, and has an LL.M. in Taxation from the Washington School of Law. It looks like his inventions are V-Call, which turns inmate 3-way calls into a “Controlled 3-way call” that earns new revenue for jails, and JuryTrial AI, which uses AI to improve jury trial outcomes. He was admitted to the bar in 1994, license #172129.
The LA County Bar rated Anthony Bayne as “Well Qualified”.
His website indicates he as received a lot of endorsements. Notably, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) Southern California District Council, and The Peace Officers Research Association of California’s (PORAC). He also has a load of judicial, attorney, and other endorsements.
MetNews writes: «Bayne has been a trial attorney for more than 30 years. In excess of 25 years of that time has been spent as a Los Angeles County deputy public defender. A senior member of his office describes him as “hard working and unassuming.” A judge remarks: “I think he would make an excellent bench officer. I’ve had multiple opportunities to observe him in court. He possesses the proper demeanor and temperament to be an excellent bench officer.” Bayne’s office performance evaluation for the one-year period ending Nov. 30, 2023 gives him an overall rating of 3.53 out of 5.0—which is said to be “Very Good” […] His law degree is from the Simon Greenleaf School of Law, now known as Trinity Law School. The Santa Ana institution is not approved by the American Bar Association but is accredited by the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners. As candidates for the Superior Court go, he’s solid, though not among the strongest. In this particular contest, we believe his credentials exceed those of his rivals and we endorse him.».
One version of his resume is posted at Pepperdine Law. He appears to be “Of Counsel” at Michelman Robinson. He received his law degree from Harvard in 1991. He was admitted to the bar in 1991, license #153527. His campaign website says that he graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Notre Dame. At Harvard Law School, he graduated cum laude and served as an officer of the Legal Aid Bureau, the nation’s oldest student-run pro bono clinic, providing free legal aid to those in need. He went on to clerk for U.S. District Judge William J. Rea, a Reagan appointee known for his independence and fairness. Over more than three decades in law, David has represented clients in the public and private sectors with distinction. As an Assistant United States Attorney, he represented the FBI, NASA, and even the President of the United States at the time, Barack Obama. As Vice President of Litigation at Sony Pictures, he managed complex cases and developed a deep understanding of an industry central to Los Angeles’ economy. Today, he practices at Michelman Robinson, a nationally respected firm, where he continues to advocate for fairness and mentor younger attorneys. David also teaches at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, where he serves as Director of the Disaster Relief Clinic, providing free legal aid to individuals harmed by floods and the Eaton and Palisade fires.
The LA County Bar rated David DeJute as “Qualified”.
He has a large number of Democratic organization endorsements, and a smaller number of judge and attorney endorsements.
MetNews writes: «DeJute is also seeking the office. His chosen ballot designation is “Law Professor/Attorney.” There’s a problem there. He’s not a law professor. DeJute does teach at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law, but he’s an adjunct professor. To bill himself as “Professor” would be like an assistant U.S. attorney—a post DeJute held for 11 years—claiming to be “U.S. Attorney.”». They also note «On Feb. 7, 2018, DeJute filed a declaration of an intent to run for a Superior Court open seat, and the following Feb. 12, he filed a declaration for an additional seat. Ultimately, he opted not to run. Before he made that decision, he mounted a campaign website that conveyed the distinct impression that he was currently an assistant U.S. attorney. The truth was that he had resigned from that position on June 30, 2017. DeJute is too devious to be trusted. The candidate graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and represented Barack Obama in gaining the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the then-president’s eligibility to hold his office based on the theory that he had not been born in the United States. He looks good—quite good—on paper, but not close up.»
Gordon is a City Attorney at the Neighborhood School Safety Program. She has a Psychology Degree from UC Irvine, and a JD from University of Nebraska (1995). She was admitted to the bar in 1999, license #205850. Her campaign website indicates she that in 2001, Sharee started as a trial deputy. She was handpicked for Central Trials, the busiest trial unit in the office. She is currently a Deputy City Attorney.
The LA County Bar rated Sharee Gordon as “Qualified”.
She has a fair number of legal and community endorsements.
MetNews writes: «Gordon has been a deputy Los Angeles city attorney for more than 25 years. A former elementary school teacher, she was director of the office’s “Neighborhood School Safety Program” until it was killed as part of an internal restructuring. She’s now a filing deputy—a less than prestigious position. She advises: “[M]y office has not issued any formal performance evaluations for me since I became a tenured employee in 2003. As a result, I do not have performance evaluation documents to provide.” Gordon, whose law degree is from the University of Nebraska, was admitted to practice on Dec. 1, 1999. Her background is not particularly impressive, but she could possibly do the job.».
📋 Conclusion
We have one “well qualified” vs. two “qualified”, and neither of the “qualified”s has enough additional experience or special characteristics to raise them above the “well qualified” candidate. The choice is clear here,
Conclusion: ⚫ Anthony Bayne
◊
Superior Court, Office № 116
◯ Patrick Connolly ⭐INC
Connolly has been a Superior Court Judge since 2009; before that, he was a Deputy DA in the LA County DA’s office for 16 years. He has a degree from the University of Oxford, Institute of International and Comparative Law, and received his JD from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1991.
The LA County Bar rated Patrick Connolly as “Well Qualified”. However, the LA Times notes: “Connolly has been disciplined multiple times in his 18-year judicial tenure for improper comments toward litigants and, in one case, exhibiting bias against a defense attorney against whom he was weighing contempt charges, according to state judicial commission records.” His opponent purchased the website “patconnolly4judge.com” which contains a PDF of the admonishment against Connolly (from the Commission on Judicial Performance site). Thompson, his opponent, says “What I see is a man who repeatedly prioritizes his own goodwill over that of the community and the public he is serving … a man who has been repeatedly disciplined for prioritizing his own interests.”
The Daily Journal notes: “The thing about Superior Court Judge Pat Connolly is he’s a bit of a loose cannon. He got thrown out of the district attorney’s gang unit after bickering with his supervisor. He sabotaged former Los Angeles County District Attorney’s web site in the midst of a heated campaign. He call the Los Angeles County Bar Association “fuckers” for rating him … (blocked by paywall)”. In 2021, the AP wrote: “A Los Angeles County judge with a history of bad behavior has been disciplined for being irritable with defense lawyers and telling an acquitted man that “there’s no question in my mind that you’re guilty.” Judge Patrick Connolly was publicly admonished for displaying improper demeanor toward two criminal defense lawyers and for an inappropriate remark after a jury verdict, the Commission on Judicial Performance said Friday. It was the third time Connolly has been disciplined since he became a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in 2009. He was admonished in 2016 for abusing his authority by conducting a hearing to determine if a defense lawyer should face contempt charges. He was privately admonished in 2010 for using profanity with lawyers. Connolly, a former gang prosecutor who presides in the Compton courthouse, told a man acquitted in a shooting case in 2018 that he was lucky.”
He has a large number of endorsements, including unions, the LA Police Protective League, and lots of judges and elected officials.
Surprisingly, MetNews endorsed Connolly, writing: «Connolly is, in some ways, not a model judge. On occasion, he’s misbehaved, incurring three admonishments by the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”), two of them public scoldings—though some of the findings are, in our view, infirm. Connolly, in an interview with this newspaper when he ran for his judgeship in 2008, termed himself “pugnacious.” He recently demonstrated that he is, indeed, combative, interceding in a proceeding before a colleague, seeking his recusal. But, upon examination, nothing he’s done has been so egregious as to warrant his being fired by voters. There are judges who ought to be ousted. The lazy ones. Those lacking honesty. The dolts. Connolly fits none of those categories. And there are strong reasons for keeping him in office. He’s principled and is highly knowledgeable in the area of criminal law. As one judicial officer puts it: “He is not a bad judge and he has been doing it for 18 years, without any significant reversals on appeal. That is enough for me to earn my support. He may have temperament issues, including being heavy handed at times. Hopefully he will see this as a challenge to improve himself in these areas.”».
Personally, given all of his admonishments, you think he would have started improving. He hasn’t, and in this day and age, we shouldn’t be tolerating bad behavior.
MetNews concludes their endorsement with: «The judge did draw negative attention to himself in 2023 when he attempted, unsuccessfully, to intervene in a Los Angeles Superior Court resentencing proceeding, seeking the disqualification of the judge handling the petition, Daniel Lowenthal, asserting bias on his part. Connolly, as determined by an Orange Superior Court judge, had no standing. While his stunt was ill-considered, it is not beyond comprehension why he desired to provide input given that the petitioner, who had been convicted in 2007 of first-degree murder, was alleging prosecutorial misconduct in the form of withholding exculpatory evidence and Connolly had been the prosecutor. There was an assault on his integrity. In the end, Lowenthal denied the petition and went out of his way to exonerate Connolly. Connolly remains rough around the edges. He’s a bit of a maverick. But he’s honorable. He’s competent. There are no indications that either the prosecution or the defense cannot expect a fair trial in his courtroom. Given our conclusion that voters have insufficient cause to turn Connolly out of office, we do not consider the competing qualifications of his challenger. We did not endorse Connolly in 2008. We do now.».
Thompson has been a Deputy DA in the LA District Attorney’s office since Mar 2007. He has a BA in History from Kent State, and a JD from UCLA School of Law (2006). He was admitted to the bar in 2006, license #245476.
The LA County Bar rated Paul Thompson as “Qualified”.
He has a large number of endorsements, mostly from Democratic clubs.
Metnews says nothing about Thompson in their endorsement of Connelly: no qualifications, no consideration of whether he might be a better judge. Is this deference to sitting judges on the part of MetNews? Unclear. However, in another article they note: “Filing a declaration of an intent to run against Connolly in the June 2 primary was Deputy District Attorney Paul A. Thompson of his office’s Major Crimes Division. Formerly with the Sex Crimes Unit, he was leading prosecutor in the case against former producer Harvey Weinstein, who was convicted in 2022 on three counts of sexual assaults.”
📋 Conclusion
Yet again, I’m going to disagree with MetNews. I think the type of behavior that Judge Connelly has exhibited from the bench is unacceptable and gives the court a bad name. It shouldn’t be accepted just because he is a sitting judge, or because of his scholarship. The bench needs jurists who are well behaved, intelligent, and wise. I have uncovered no besmirches on the part of Paul Thompson, and so he seems the better candidate to me.
Conclusion: ⚫ Paul Thompson
◊
Superior Court, Office № 131
The LA County Bar rated Carlos Dammeier as “Qualified”. He got his JD from Western State in 1997.
In 2024, the SB Sun wrote: “It looks as though Dieter Carlos Dammeier will stay planted in Rancho Cucamonga as an administrative law judge after losing judicial races in both Merced and San Bernardino counties in Tuesday’s primary election. Dammier, 55, who serves on the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board in Rancho Cucamonga, said he would likely have moved to Merced County had he won a seat on the bench there, as his son wants to attend UC Merced. In Merced County, Dammeier ran against Monika Saini-Donabed, a judicial attorney for Merced County Superior Court, and attorney Regina Sonja Lea Adams. Saini-Donabed captured 61.2% of the vote, eliminating the chance for a November runoff between her and Dammeier, who finished second with 22.3% of the vote.” The SB Sun noted: “Dammeier, a former police attorney whose now-defunct Upland law firm gained notoriety in 2013 for alleged unethical conduct, drew flak from the San Bernardino County Supervising Deputy District Attorneys Association for running for office in both counties. Association spokesman Douglas Poston called it “very misleading to the public in both counties.””
He has no endorsements.
MetNews writes: «Also vying for the open seat are two administrative law judges. One of them, Carlos Dammeier, is a buffoon who, two years ago, ran for a Superior Court judgeship in two counties. This year, he tried to scare others out of entering the same contests as he by proclaiming that he would place $1 million in his campaign coffers. He’s come up a bit short, transferring $80,000.». They also have another article complaining about his choice of ballot designator, which also quotes an SB Sun opinion piece that says: “Dammeier was once a partner at the Upland-based firm Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir, which represented police officers and police unions. The firm began dissolving in 2013 amid allegations of fraudulent billing practices. It lost one of its largest clients, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, and its 99,000 members after a forensic audit uncovered triple-billing, bogus travel expenses and “serious acts of misconduct.” In 2018, the defunct law firm paid $607,500 to settle a lawsuit alleging it had hired a private investigator to illegally plant a GPS device on a car belonging to the mayor of Costa Mesa. Dammeier’s firm also was accused of having an investigator falsely report to police that a Costa Mesa councilmember was driving drunk. The DUI incident triggered investigations by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office as well as the FBI.”
Ross is a Deputy Public Defender for the County of Los Angeles. He graduated from University of West Los Angeles in 1994 with his JD. The LA County Bar rated David Ross as “Qualified”.
MetNews writes: “Ross, like Tryfman, has three decades of courtroom experience. As a judge, he would have the ability to conduct court proceedings proficiently, with regard to the mechanics. However, we do perceive a lack of a commitment to fairness and accuracy on his part, lessening the prospect that justice would be attained in his courtroom in any give case.” This is based on an editorial from a Tryfman supporter, who went on and on complaining about Ross’s ballot designation, and believing he was intentionally inflating his position. Is that disqualification? Unclear. The supposed crime? This post makes it clear: “His chosen ballot designation was “Deputy Public Defender, County of Los Angeles.” But he’s a member of the Alternate Public Defender’s Office.”. That article goes on to note: «One judge says: “APD David Ross did a full murder trial in my court. I found him also competent and well learned on the law. He was pleasant and did a good job of defending his client. He might come off a bit arrogant, but I personally don’t think he is arrogant. I just think he’s been around a long time and does not have tolerance for lazy and sloppy work. Personally I admire that. But I have warned him that he will have to show patience on the bench, because all we get these days is lazy and sloppy work.”»
His website shows a lot of union endorsements, and Democratic clubs and organization. There are also lots of judicial and attorney endorsements.
Slaten is an Administrative Law Judge for the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations. Before that, he was a Partner and Managing Attorney at Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin LLP, and a Senior Associate Attorney at the Kavinoky Law Firm. He has a BA in English Literature from UCLA, and a JD from Pepperdine Law (2004). He was admitted to the bar in 2005, license #237468. He was also a child actor — starring as Michael Lacey on Cagney & Lacey (7 seasons, CBS), Jerry Steiner on Parker Lewis Can’t Lose (73 episodes, Fox), and appearing alongside Michael Keaton in Johnny Dangerously and Danny DeVito in Jack the Bear. He earned two Young Artist Award nominations and guest-starred on The Wonder Years, Roseanne, Who’s the Boss?, Greatest American Hero, and Murphy Brown.
The LA County Bar rated Troy Slaten as “Qualified”.
He does not list any endorsements.
MetNews writes: «The other ALJ is Troy W. Slaten, a former child actor who is running for the third time. He’s a fabulist. Four years ago, he was an attorney who appeared as a supposed legal expert on various news shows, billed as a “former prosecutor.” He was never a prosecutor. As a law student, he did some volunteer work for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.» MetNews does seem to get upset about Administrative Law Judges calling themselves Judges. An editoral written by a Tryman supporter in MetNews noted: “Slaten’s past attempts to mislead by falsely claiming to be a “former prosecutor,” failed to resonate with voters in 2020, and some might say that his subsequent change of occupation to a workers compensation judge could have been simply a ruse to acquire a more attractive ballot title, namely, “Administrative Law Judge.” That ballot title, however, was equally ineffective in the 2022 election. Perhaps Slaten felt that his ballot title needed a little more “juice” in order to mislead voters into believing he was a judge of the Superior Court? Hence his appearance in a Facebook post wearing a robe having purportedly been “sworn in,” and his job description on his Facebook profile as “Judge.” Both failed to do the trick at the ballot box in 2022. Slaten returns in 2026 and his Facebook hoax remains, bolstered perhaps, by his use of the title “Honorable” in other social media. The LinkedIn profile page for the California Department of Industrial Relations, Slaten’s employer, shows a number of Administrative Law Judges with Slaten distinguishing himself as “Hon. Troy Slaten,” while no other ALJ uses that honorific. It is my understanding that only government officials who have been elected or appointed to public office are afforded the courtesy title of “The Honorable.” Slaten’s use of the honorific could be seen by some as a case of stolen valor. It is certainly the case that those appearing at Workers Compensation hearings may refer to the ALJ as “Your Honor,” however, according to the ALJ Discussion Forum (https://aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/2301/aljs-privileged-use-title), the use of that title is simply for convenience of the parties and is not an official title.”
Tryfman is a Senior Trial Counsel for Complex Litigation, Deputy Public Defender IV at the LA County Public Defender’s office. Before that, she was an Associate Attorney at the Law Offices of Mark J. Werksman. She graduated from Brandeis University in 1989, and received her JD from the University of La Verne School of Law in 1994. She was admitted to the bar in 1995, license #176744.
The LA County Bar rated Donna Tryfman as “Qualified”.
Her website lists a very large number of judicial and legal community endorsements.
MetNews writes: «Tryfman is, in our view, the best choice among the four contestants for Seat № 131. She is straight-talking—which offends some—but we find that markedly preferable to what we perceive to be an opposite propensity on the part of her chief opponent, Deputy Alternate Public Defender David Ross. […] Looking at Tryfman: In her annual office performance evaluations, she receives the overall rating of only “competent”—lower than “exceeds expectations” or “far exceeds expectations”— but nonetheless draws such comments as these: “She willingly accepts the most challenging and serious felony cases. And volunteers for cases that might be daunting to others.” […] Despite the lackluster rating, Tryfman’s office obviously vests a high degree of confidence in her. She is a member of the elite Major Cases Unit and is assigned exclusively to defend clients facing a possible death sentence. Lightweights would hardly be entrusted with such cases. […] She does have detractors, however. One respected person in her office says that Tryfman has a “caustic personality.” Even a supporter of hers, who authored an article denigrating Ross that appeared in the MetNews on March 2—with the author’s name withheld by request—acknowledged that Tryfman “can have an abrasiveness or directness about her.” From what we discern, she is not one to simply shrug her shoulders when she encounters what she sees as an injustice, but speaks out, forthrightly. However, we are aware of no allegation that she has, in expressing her views, employed inappropriate wording or dishonest argumentation.»
📋 Conclusion
This is another battle of “qualified” candidates. I agree with the assessment that Dammeier is trying to play games and really isn’t qualified. Slaten might be qualified (and I don’t hold with all of MetNews’ complaints), but he has no endorsements. Between the two with endorsements, Ross and Tryfman, it is harder to decide. Again, I dismiss the concerns raised by MetNews, as they mostly came from an editorial from someone supporting Tryfman. They are both rated “qualified”. However, I assess that Tryfman has slightly more endorsements, and more endorsements from the legal community.
Conclusion: ⚫ Donna Tryfman
◊
Superior Court, Office № 141
⚫ Mariela Torres
Mariela Hortencia Torres is a veteran Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney. Mariela Torres earned her JD from Pacific Coast University in 2005. She was admitted to the Bar in 2006, license #246973.
📋 Conclusion
Torres is running unopposed, making this decision easy.
Conclusion: ⚫ Mariela Torres
◊
Superior Court, Office № 176
Marin is currently serving as a Deputy District Attorney with over two decades of prosecutorial experience. She received her JD from Loyola in 2002. She has been with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office since 2005, and is currently the Deputy-in-Charge of the Asset Forfeiture Unit. Previously, she served as Deputy-in-Charge of the Inglewood Juvenile Office and a training attorney.
The LA County Bar rated Gloria Marin as “Well Qualified”.
She has a large number of endorsements from Democratic organizations, the Association of Deputy District DAs, judges, and other legal professionals, including former DAs Steve Cooley and Jackie Lacey.
MetNews writes: «Marin is the only worthy candidate in this race. She has overcome obstacles—including not speaking English when she arrived in the United States as a child in 1980, fleeing a civil war in Nicaragua. She has survived cancer. At present, Marin is deputy-in-charge of the Asset Forfeiture Unit. Her latest office performance evaluation, for 2023-24, characterizes her as “dedicated to her job and highly intelligent” and as “the consummate team player.” A veteran prosecutor terms her “pleasant, hard working and competent.” It’s clear that she has what it takes to perform on the bench with skill.».
Smith completed his undergraduate degree in Sport Management at Guilford College in 1995. He received his JD from City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law in 2000, where he served as a Moot Court Teaching Assistant for Criminal Law and Evidence. He has 23 years of services as a L.A. County Deputy Public Defender IV at the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s office, where he has tried more than 120 jury and bench trials. He has spent 18 years focused on representing defendants accused of serious felonies ranging from drug possession to murder, and is specifically qualified to handle complex special circumstances cases. He began his legal career in 2001 in New York City Family Court, where he legally represented abused and neglected children.
The LA County Bar rated Zachary Smith as “Qualified”.
His endorsements are mostly from Democratic Clubs, but there are a fair number of judge and legal profession endorsements.
MetNews writes: «If her opponent, Deputy Public Defender Zachary Smith, has attributes qualifying him for a judgeship, we don’t know what they are. He’s not saying. He has no campaign website and does not respond to inquiries. Smith is a candidate in hiding. A knowledgeable source in the Public Defender’s Office tells us he has an “unfortunate self-entitled attitude” and is “not the hardest working.”». MetNews obviously didn’t do their research.
📋 Conclusion
Although MetNews didn’t do their research, Marin is rated Well Qualified vs Smith’s Qualified. That, plus her endorsements, is the deciding factor.
Conclusion: ⚫ Gloria Marin
◊
Superior Court, Office № 181
Since 2025, Dibble has served as a Superior Court Commissioner for the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles and presides over civil small claims and unlawful detainer cases. From 2006 to 2025, Dibble was a deputy district attorney at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, completing more than 70 jury trials. Dibble served in the Hardcore Gang, Major Narcotics, and Justice System Integrity Divisions, prosecuting homicides, violent felonies, large-scale narcotics trafficking cases, and police misconduct cases. He also assisted in dozens of wiretap investigations and trained hundreds of law enforcement professionals and attorneys on gangs, wiretaps, search warrants, and the investigation and prosecution of illegal opioid prescribing cases. He earned his JD from USC in 2005. He was admitted to the bar in 2005 (license ##239011), but went inactive in September 2025. (USC)
The LA County Bar rated Ryan Dibble as “Well Qualified”.
He has a large number of endorsements from Democratic organizations, judges, and legal professionals.
MetNews writes: «Four years ago, then-Deputy District Attorney Ryan Dibble ran for the Los Angeles Superior Court in a three-person race. Quoting words of high praise from judges, in response to our inquiries, and from his annual office performance evaluations—one of which describes him as “dedicated, easygoing, hardworking and conscientious” and someone who “gets along well with everyone he encounters”—we endorsed him, commenting that he “has what it takes to serve as a judge.” Dibble’s credentials are all the more impressive now. He has bench experience, having been elected last July by Los Angeles Superior Court judges as a court commissioner. […] Dibble is a lecturer in law at USC, where he earned his law degree. Before becoming a commissioner, he was a volunteer temporary judge. From what we have gleaned, there is no question as to his intellectual capacity and his integrity. Clearly, Dibble is highly qualified for a judgeship. Without reservation, we again endorse him.»
Lindsey is an Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings with nearly thirty years of legal experience, including currently as a judicial officer and previously as a court supervisor, associate professor, and family law practitioner. Judge Lindsey earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Purdue University and Certificate of Proficiency in Spanish; and her Juris Doctor from the University of Florida Levin College of Law achieving the Dean’s List. She graduated from UCLA School of Business Management Development for Entrepreneurs (MDE) program as well as the mediation training certificate program. From May 2021 to October 2023, she served as Administrative Law Judge with the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, where she presided over several thousand unemployment insurance appeals.
The LA County Bar rated Thanayi Lindsey as “Not Qualified”.
She has a small number of judge and legal professional endorsements, and a number of unidentified personal endorsements. No organizational endorsements.
MetNews writes: Lindsey «is not fit for the open seat for which they are vying. She is Administrative Law Judge Thanayi Lindsey. The fact that she received a public reproval from the State Bar in 2011 surely does not, by itself, point to unworthiness to serve as a Superior Court judge currently. However, her refusal to discuss what the State Bar described 15 years ago as “Emotional/Physical Difficulties” and provide an explanation as to what those difficulties were and how they have been overcome does point to a lack of a sense of accountability. She has entered a race for a public office. That is an invitation for scrutiny by the electorate. Yet, she will not open up and address a matter relating to her fitness. […] There is also the issue of Lindsey’s campaign shenanigans. She’s administrative law judge. “Judge” is part of her title but, standing alone, use of that title is deceptive, creating as it does the impression that she presides over trials in a courtroom—that is, that she’s a member of the judiciary. Yet, her campaign website exhorts: “Elect Judge Thanayi Lindsey for Superior Court,” But she’s not “Judge Thanayi Lindsey” and we hope she never become such. Even the address of the website is deceitful: “https://www.electjudgelindseyforlasuperiorcourt.org/.” Her chosen ballot designation is “Judge of Administrative California Hearings-Special Education Division.” In her quest to lead off with the word “Judge” she has concocted a nonexistent job title which the Office of Registrar-Recorder was derelict in tentatively allowing.»
📋 Conclusion
Although MetNews has their quibbles with Lindsey, the bar rating for me is more important. Dibble is Well Qualified. Lindsey is Not Qualified.
Conclusion: ⚫ Ryan Dibble
◊
Superior Court, Office № 196
⚫ Candice Henry
Henry is assistant head deputy of the District Attorney’s Office’s Major Narcotics Division. She has been with the office since 2005. She has handled more than 70 jury trials, including murder and attempted murder cases. She has served as a faculty member of the National District Attorneys Association, training prosecutors and law enforcement officers on such subjects as constitutional law and science-based interviewing techniques. Her law degree is from USC. She was admitted to the bar in 2003, license #229064.
📋 Conclusion
Henry is running unopposed for a vacant seat. Easy peasy.
Conclusion: ⚫ Candice Henry
This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as 🗳️ June 2026 Primary Election Ballot Analysis (V): 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.