Judge of the Superior Court
In Los Angeles, judges are elected to six-year terms in countywide races, which in a county of 10 million people ensures that no candidate can reach more than the tiniest fraction of the electorate. This means that incumbents are impossible to beat unless they’re up to their necks in scandal, and even then a judicial PAC protects even the most loathsome among them. Judicial hopefuls go to war over the open seats — futures are often decided by a game of musical chairs at the County Registrar, leaving a lucky few running unopposed. This is obviously a great system and a credit to democracy.
Finding meaningful information about the candidates also poses an enormous challenge. Your average campaign website has a list of endorsements, some vague language about fairness and the law, and a smiling photo of a person in a suit. That’s why we’re here. Our recommendations are based on dozens of conversations with progressive lawyers and organizers.
Part of the purpose of this guide is to push back against the biases built into what little information is available. The Bar Association, for example, rates candidates on their “qualifications” in a manner that privileges prosecutorial experience over defense or civil work. In the race for Seat 64, for example, they rated Public Defender Haymon as only “qualified” with 26 years of experience, and District Attorney Ghobadi as “well qualified” with 17.
Many other publications also fall for the fiction that “nonpartisan” judicial races are politically neutral. The police unions certainly don’t believe that; they endorse the judges they think will be most friendly to an agenda of criminalization and imprisonment. We also see the intervention of groups like the Crime Survivors PAC, a Trumpist Republican group that prospective judges list proudly on their websites. Even without those extremes, there is a meaningful difference between a judiciary made up of white male ex-DAs and one with a diversity of cultural, class, and professional backgrounds.
Seat 2: DDA Tal Kahn Valbuena
Valbuena is a deputy district attorney in the mental health court, and serves on the County LGBTQ Commission. He has a reputation as a fair and rehabilitation-minded prosecutor who approaches cases from a holistic perspective rather than trying to simply inflict punishment. He speaks openly about racial inequality in the criminal legal system, and would also bring the perspective of a refugee to the bench.
Valbuena would be an excellent choice in any case, but especially when weighed against incumbent Judge Robert Draper. Draper is facing severe misconduct allegations of racist remarks on the record, sexually inappropriate conversations and unwanted touching, and questions about his fitness for the position, leading to censure and possible removal by the Commission on Judicial Performance. While the allegations are still pending, his behavior has already led to the court of appeals overturning a jury verdict from his court.
Seat 14: DDA Angie Christides
This is a DA-on-DA election. We recommend Angie Christides, a 20-year prosecutor who also worked in the rehabilitation-focused settings of the Veterans Court and Community Collaborative Court.
Irene Lee left the DA’s office during the Gascón administration to join the reactionary tough-on-crime chorus. Lee was the victim of a random attack in August 2020, and when the culprit was later arrested for attacking Olympian Kim Glass she went on a media tour denouncing “woke” officials for putting the man back on the street. What she left out, of course, is that it wasn’t Gascón’s office who released her attacker on probation or rejected felony charges in her case — it was previous DA Jackie Lacey. We have no confidence in her ability to be an impartial arbiter of the law.
Seat 64: DPD Rhonda Haymon
Rhonda Haymon is an experienced trial attorney who boasts more than 25 years as a public defender. In our research we heard both pros and cons: praise for her grit and determination as an advocate, criticism of her ability to work collaboratively. She has the endorsements of judges Holly Hancock, George Turner, and Ericka Wiley, who won election as part of a movement to expand the diversity of background and experience in the judiciary; she also is endorsed by La Defensa, who helped power slates of progressive judicial candidates in previous cycles. We recommend her for this seat.
Seat 65: Anna Reitano
Judicial Musical Chairs strikes again. Other open seats have a lone candidate who wins by default. This seat has four, two of whom we’d be more than happy to support in any other race. In the running for Seat 65 are current deputy public defender Justin Clayton, a supervisor at the Inglewood office; and former deputy public defender Anna Reitano (now with County Counsel). While both would be strong choices, we recommend Reitano: as part of the first Defenders of Justice slate in 2022, she helped open the door for progressive and community-focused lawyers to run for the bench.
Seat 66: DDA Ben Forer
District Attorney Forer is well-suited for the bench, with a strong scholarly background as a teacher of cyber law at USC and as an ordained rabbi. At the courthouse he’s known as a person who can help settle a case, and as a believer in earning second chances. He deserves your vote.
His opponent, Cheryl Turner, is a lawyer for and on the board of directors of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) — literally, the landlord lobby. It is hard to name an organization more devoted to impoverishing and disempowering the working class than AAGLA, a group that fights every day for your landlord’s right to bleed you dry and kick you out of your home. This should be disqualifying in the eyes of any Angeleno.
Seat 81: Dan Kapelovitz
Kapelovitz is a genuine old-school radical lawyer, steadfast in his commitment to transformative change in the system. He touts his commitment to the working class and a decade plus of a practice focused on low-income clients, with a particular pro-bono lane related to animal rights.
He’s running against incumbent Judge Walgren who, unlike other incumbents mentioned in this guide, is not currently facing any disciplinary action. Even though it would have been an easier road for Kapelovitz in another seat, we give him our recommendation. If we’re going to be choosing judges by election the scope of that pool should be expanded as much as possible.
Seat 87: DPD Anthony Bayne
Anthony Bayne boasts a quarter century of experience at the public defender’s office, including 19 years at the Compton Courthouse in roles ranging from defending the most severe felony offenses to the supervision of new misdemeanor attorneys. His broad experience with the courts at every level puts him head and shoulders above his challengers for the seat.
Seat 116: DDA Paul Thompson
Incumbent Pat Connolly has been repeatedly disciplined for improper conduct, and drawn censure for biased behavior such as: abusing his authority to hold a defense attorney in contempt, telling an acquitted defendant that he was sure the man was guilty, and attempting to intervene in the resentencing petition of a man that he had prosecuted and who had accused him of misconduct. Judges rarely face discipline except in the most egregious cases; the simple fact is that Connolly, who the Bar Association classified as “Not Qualified” during his original election, has demonstrated through his own actions that he is unfit for the bench.
His opponent is Paul Thompson, a prosecutor who, among other things, won the rape conviction of Harvey Weinstein in 2022. He has the experience to support his run, and has chosen the harder road of taking on an incumbent who he considers “an unqualified bully” rather than competing for an open seat. In a shocking display of incumbent solidarity, a judge who endorsed Thompson faced threats and harassment from other judges. Vote Connolly out.
Seat 131: DAPD David Ross
For those who don’t know, the county has two public defender offices — the alternate public defender, where Ross has worked since the year 2000, handles cases where there are multiple defendants or conflicts of interest between them that would disqualify the public defender. Before becoming an attorney, he spent a decade as a journalist. He has an excellent resume and a commitment to the people left behind by our system, and in interviews with organizations he impressed with his thoughtfulness and temperament. He’s both the progressive choice and the most qualified candidate.
Troy Slaten ran for judge in 2020 against a prosecutor with a history of misconduct; in this race, however, Ross’s greater experience wins out. Carlos Dammeier is a former police officer. His former firm represented the Costa Mesa police union, and wound up dissolving itself when the police union was sued for aggressive legal tactics by Costa Mesa City Council members. Nothing in his background suggests that he would be a good judge. Public Defender Donna Tryfman is also in the running. She’s faced allegations of misconduct during her previous campaign for Beverly Hills School Board, and she has been accused of harassing coworkers for their opposition to the genocide in Gaza.
Seat 176: DPD Zachary Smith
With 23 years in the public defender’s office, Smith has demonstrated the depth of experience required for a judicial seat and is well regarded by other attorneys. His opponent, Gloria Marin, touts endorsements from reactionary former DAs Cooley and Lacey, and the Trump-supporting Crime Victims PAC.
Seat 181: Thanayi Lindsey
Both candidates in this race have quasi-judicial experience. Ryan Dibble, former deputy district attorney, was appointed a Superior Court commissioner in 2025 and has been hearing cases in Small Claims court. Thanayi Lindsey has been an administrative law judge since 2021, overseeing hearings relating to government agency actions such as professional license suspension. Both candidates are also, frankly, overselling their judicial experience in their campaigns. In this instance we’d recommend Lindsey to increase the diversity of perspectives on the bench.
Seats 39, 60, & 141: Unopposed Races
In Seats 39, 60, and 141, Public Defender Binh Dang, Glendale City Attorney Ann Maurer, and Deputy District Attorney Mariela Torres lucked into unopposed races and will now become judges. They might be wonderful, they might be terrible, but we don’t have anything meaningful to say about them because no one is running against them. A judge is a position of enormous respect, with the power to transform the lives of the people who appear before them, and we’re making the choice by the luck of the draw. Is this the system we want?