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):
- State and National Offices (excluding judges)
- County and City (Los Angeles) Local Offices (excluding judges)
- Measures / 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.
Note: Please read the introductory post (Part I). There is a discussion there of a number of topics related to the election: Israel, Single Payer Health Care, the SB1 Gas Tax, High Speed Rail, PAC Donations, and “When California Was Best” that apply to all candidates. Further, the introductory post covers reuse of the analysis from the primary: generally, candidates don’t change their spots, and my primary positions hold into the general. When my favored candidate didn’t move forward or significant new information surfaced, then I reexamine positions.
This part covers all the judgeships on the ballot. Note that for the California (state-level) offices, the vote is just a “do we retain this justice”.
- Judge of the Superior Court: Office № 64 ❦ № 65 ❦ № 87 ❦ № 131
- California Supreme Court: Two associate judges
- California Court of Appeals: Eighteen appeals court judges
🗳️
Judge of the Superior Court (of Los Angeles)
The judgeships are an interesting beast. California law requires Superior Court 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 № 64
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
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”.
ETA 5/25: Based on a comment received, I added the link to Clayton’s website.
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 two qualified candidates, and MetNews providing little guidance except for its usual nitpicks and biases. The MetNews endorsement for the primary didn’t make the general election. Clayton has a number of Democratic club endorsements, affinity groups, and a fair amount of judges. Clayton’s experience is on the public defender side. Reitano also has Public Defender experience. She has a much broader set of endorsements, including newspaper endorsements and elected leader endorsements. In the primary, I supported Reitano. Reviewing the endorsements for Clayton (which are new), I don’t see something strong enough to get me to change my mind, although this one is really a coin toss: Both candidates are good.
Conclusion: ⚫ Anna Slotky Reitano
◊
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.»
📋 Conclusion
We have one “well qualified” vs. one “qualified”, and the “qualified” candidate doesn’t 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 № 131
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.
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. Between Ross and Tryfman, it is hard 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
🗳️
California Supreme Court
For all 58 Counties
California is a strange beast. It requires judges on the state Supreme Court to be periodically reconfirmed in their offices. If they aren’t confirmed, the Governor appoints a replacement. In general, the approach is to reconfirm the justice, unless there is something in the behavior of the justice that would justify removal from the office (e.g., malfeasance, blatantly ignoring conflicts of interest, judgements that are not in accordance with the law, and so forth)
According to LAist: Elections for California Supreme Court justices work differently from trial court judges. These nonpartisan races are called retention elections, which are fairly common in the U.S. That means candidates aren’t running against each other to become Supreme Court justices in California, but voters are deciding whether sitting justices should keep their seats on the bench. In California, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor and then subject to approval by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. Newly confirmed justices have to face voters at the next gubernatorial election and when they want another term.
For all of these offices, my deep-dive approach is simple. I’m going to search for any issues, problems, or concerns with the justice. If I find none, then the answer is to ✅ Retain. If there are issues, we’ll assess and discuss and decide whether to ✅ Retain (Yes) / ❌ Reject (No)
◊
Associate Justice Groban
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice of the Supreme Court JOSHUA GROBAN be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major scandals, ethical violations, or disciplinary concerns regarding California Supreme Court Associate Justice Joshua Groban. His record since his 2019 appointment by Governor Jerry Brown remains clean. The most common lighthearted “problem” associated with the Justice is sharing a name with the famous singer Josh Groban. The two are actually distantly related (second or third cousins) and live relatively close to each other in Los Angeles. Justice Groban has joked that this has resulted in a decade of mixed-up dry-cleaning and pharmacy prescriptions. He also frequently clarifies that he has “no musical talent whatsoever.”
Justice Groban has had some issues with the legislature. When asked in a public interview about the worst part of serving as a Supreme Court justice, Groban humorously noted a professional frustration: “Staring at a statute and thinking, ‘Boy, the Legislature really screwed this up.’”
Google AI noted that in February 2024, Justice Groban filed a notable statement dissenting from the state Supreme Court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition. It was later noted that finding the decision was hard. In May 2026, Justice Groban authored a major unanimous opinion (J.O. v. Superior Court) aimed at solving a long-standing systemic “problem” in the California court system. He ruled against the abuse of “blanket challenges,” a practice where institutional litigants or prosecutors would use bad-faith disqualification motions to systematically force specific judges off all their cases, which Groban noted threatened the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Neither seems problematic.
In short, there appears no reason to reject.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Associate Justice Evans
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice of the Supreme Court KELLI M. EVANS be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no ethical scandals, disciplinary violations, or misconduct concerns associated with California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kelli Evans. Rated as “well qualified” during her evaluation, her record since taking office in January 2023 remains clean.
However, the AI search noted a few notable legal debates and initial pushback regarding representation:
- Initial Pushback Over Appointment Timing and Demographics. When Governor Gavin Newsom announced her nomination in August 2022 to replace Justice Patricia Guerrero (who was elevated to Chief Justice), it drew mixed reactions from some civic advocacy corners. While Evans was widely celebrated in legal and civil rights circles for her formidable credentials and for making history as the court’s first openly lesbian justice, some Latino advocacy groups criticized the appointment. Their concern was that elevating Guerrero left the seven-member high court without a second Latina/Latino justice at a time when Latinos made up approximately 40% of California’s population.
- A Surge in Criminal Review Dissents. In terms of structural concerns within the justice system, Evans—alongside fellow liberal Justice Goodwin H. Liu—has driven a significant surge in recorded dissents. During the 2024–2025 term, the number of state Supreme Court dissents over the refusal to review criminal cases doubled. Legal analysts note that Evans has routinely spotlighted concerns regarding severe sentencing practices, particularly for young adult offenders. Her frequent dissents from the majority’s refusal to review appellate rulings have underscored a sharp philosophical divide within the court regarding criminal justice reform.
- Outspoken Stance on Systemic Racial Disparities. Justice Evans has been uncommonly direct in using her dissenting opinions to critique broader societal and judicial issues. For instance, in People v. Barrera, she formally highlighted persisting systemic discrimination and over-policing targeting Latino communities in California, using her platform to challenge what she views as legal frameworks that perpetuate extreme racial disparities in the state’s juvenile and criminal justice systems.
None of these seem to be a reason to reject.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
🗳️
California Court of Appeals – Second Appellate District
Covers the counties of Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura
California is a strange beast. It requires judges on the Appeals Courts to be periodically reconfirmed in their offices. If they aren’t confirmed, the Governor appoints a replacement. In general, the approach is to reconfirm the justice, unless there is something in the behavior of the justice that would justify removal from the office (e.g., malfeasance, blatantly ignoring conflicts of interest, judgements that are not in accordance with the law, and so forth)
According to LAist: Elections for appellate courts work differently than when you vote for county judges. Candidates don’t run against each other to become justices. Instead, voters are asked whether to keep sitting justices in their posts. These nonpartisan races are called retention elections, which are fairly common in the U.S. In California, appellate court justices are first appointed by the governor and then subject to approval by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. Newly confirmed justices have to face voters at the next gubernatorial election and when they want another term. Retention elections are “yes” or “no” questions on whether you want to keep a justice on the bench. You’ll come across two job titles in these races: Associate Justice and Presiding Justice. A presiding justice handles the administrative side of the court, sets policies and essentially acts as a supervisor, in addition to reviewing cases with associate justices. When a new appellate court justice needs to be appointed, the presiding justice in that district takes part in the approval process.
For all of these offices, my deep-dive approach is simple. I’m going to search for any issues, problems, or concerns with the justice. If I find none, then the answer is to ✅ Retain. If there are issues, we’ll assess and discuss and decide whether to ✅ Retain (Yes) / ❌ Reject (No)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division One, Associate Justice Kim
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice MICHELLE C. KIM be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, There are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary concerns involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Michelle C. Kim. Appointed to the Second District Court of Appeal in late 2024 by Governor Gavin Newsom, her professional record as a jurist remains entirely clean.
Google AI notes that, because her career intersects with hot-button legal issues, there are two distinct areas where her name arises regarding system “problems” or public scrutiny:
- Distinct Identity and Name Confusion. If you search for public backlash regarding “Judge Kim” in the Los Angeles court system, you will find heavily reported controversies from 2025 involving a Los Angeles Superior Court judge accused by the District Attorney’s office of granting lenient mental health diversions to violent offenders. This controversy does not involve Justice Michelle C. Kim. The judge involved in those public safety debates is Judge Lana Kim. Because both women served as judges within the expansive Los Angeles county court system during overlapping periods, local media reports and court tracking software occasionally conflate their names.
- High Scrutiny from Her Public Defender Background. Before her elevation to the appellate bench, Justice Kim spent 15 years as a Deputy Public Defender and a departmental Head Deputy for the Los Angeles County Alternate Public Defender’s Office. She made history upon her confirmation as the first former member of that specific office to ever be elevated to the California Court of Appeal.
Neither of these seem a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division One, Associate Justice Weingart
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice GREGORY J. WEINGART be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major scandals, ethical violations, or disciplinary concerns involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Gregory J. Weingart. Nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom and unanimously confirmed in November 2022, his professional record as a jurist is completely clean.
Google AI notes that, because of name similarities and his transition onto the bench, there are two contextual items to keep in mind regarding his name or role:
- Separation from the “Weingart Center” Homeless Funding Scandals. Because Justice Weingart sits on the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, public record searches for the name “Weingart” in L.A. legal matters frequently pull up heavy news coverage concerning federal investigations into the Weingart Center. The Weingart Center is a prominent Los Angeles homeless services non-profit that has faced severe scrutiny, audits, and real estate controversies. Justice Weingart has no connection to this non-profit or its financial controversies. The organization was named after a 20th-century real estate developer and philanthropist, Ben Weingart.
- Succeeding a Highly Contentious Seat. When Justice Weingart was nominated to Division One of the Second District Court of Appeal in late 2022, he was stepped into a seat left vacant by former Justice Jeffrey Johnson. Johnson had been removed from office by the Commission on Judicial Performance following highly publicized, severe misconduct and sexual harassment allegations. While this historical context means the seat itself was the center of massive institutional “problems” right before Weingart’s arrival, Justice Weingart was specifically brought in as a highly respected, stabilizing choice to restore standard operations to the division. Prior to his appellate appointment, he built a reputation for rigorous, unassailable legal ethics during his career as a federal prosecutor (serving as Chief of Major Frauds for the Central District of California), a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson, and a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Two, Associate Justice Richardson
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice ANNE RICHARDSON be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no ethical scandals, disciplinary proceedings, or misconduct concerns involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Anne K. Richardson. Appointed to Division Two of the Second District Court of Appeal by Governor Gavin Newsom in late 2024, she possesses an unblemished record.
Google AI notes that, while her record is clear of professional problems, her high-profile caseload and background mean she frequently appears in legal news regarding significant systemic issues:
- Hard Stance Against Legal Anonymity (“Doe” Lawsuits). Justice Richardson has become a prominent voice against what she views as a problematic trend of hiding litigant names from the public. In the notable ruling Roe v. Smith, she reversed a lower court’s decision allowing two defamation plaintiffs to litigate under pseudonyms. Richardson forcefully wrote that the public has a fundamental right to know who is using public courts, noting that shielding names should be reserved strictly for compelling circumstances rather than simple personal embarrassment.
- High-Profile Dismissals. Sitting on the appellate bench in Los Angeles means she routinely reviews cases involving major public figures, which draws immense public scrutiny. For instance, in September 2026, Richardson authored a unanimous panel opinion dismissing a high-profile extortion and defamation lawsuit brought by the musician Jay-Z against an attorney. Richardson ruled that the attorney’s pre-litigation demand letters were protected under California law, highlighting her strict adherence to state litigation privilege frameworks even when powerful figures are involved.
- Progressive Civil Rights Background. Before her time on the bench, Richardson spent 24 years as a civil rights and employment law litigator, followed by four years as the director of the Consumer Law Project at Public Counsel. While this background earned her praise from civil rights advocates, corporate defense organizations and business-aligned groups occasionally scrutinize judges with extensive plaintiff-side consumer histories, watching closely to ensure their rulings remain balanced when reviewing corporate liability and consumer protection laws.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Two, Associate Justice Goorvitch
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice STEVE GOORVITCH be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, disciplinary findings, or criminal misconduct concerns involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Stephen “Steve” Goorvitch. Nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom and unanimously confirmed in May 2026, his long-standing record as a federal prosecutor and judge remains clean.
Google AI notes that, because his confirmation to the appellate bench is relatively recent, a review of his public records highlights a few specific procedural and career contexts where minor issues or challenges have surfaced:
- Formal Procedural Opposition During His 2026 Confirmation. During his confirmation hearing before the Commission on Judicial Appointments, Goorvitch faced formal public opposition from a litigant regarding a procedural issue from his time on the Los Angeles Superior Court. The opponent argued that in March 2023, then-Judge Goorvitch allegedly violated the California Code of Civil Procedure by personally striking down a disqualification motion filed against him, rather than letting an independent judge rule on the recusal. While this objection was formally entered into the record, the Commission ultimately found it insufficient to impact his qualifications and voted unanimously to elevate him to the Court of Appeal.
- High Scrutiny Over a Complex 2017 Civil-Criminal Parallel Case. As highlighted in his legal profiles, one of Goorvitch’s most scrutinized decisions as a trial judge involved a 2017 lawsuit brought by a terminally ill plaintiff. The lawsuit overlapped with a separate, parallel criminal case involving the same defendant. Managing parallel proceedings is a notoriously difficult balancing act for trial judges, as they must ensure a civil lawsuit moves forward rapidly enough for an ailing plaintiff while protecting a defendant’s constitutional rights in the active criminal trial. The complex manner in which Goorvitch navigated this high-stakes timing conflict remains a point of deep analysis among local attorneys.
- White-Collar Prosecution Background. Before ascending to the bench, Justice Goorvitch spent eight years as a federal prosecutor handling major fraud cases for the U.S. Department of Justice, following a stint as a staff attorney for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. While his specialized background makes him highly knowledgeable in complex financial and corporate litigation, public interest or defense-oriented groups occasionally review former federal prosecutors closely to watch for structural patterns or perceived “pro-prosecution” tendencies when they transition into evaluating criminal appeals.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Three, Presiding Justice Adams
❓ Question: Shall Presiding Justice RASHIDA A. ADAMS be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no ethical scandals, disciplinary proceedings, or misconduct concerns involving California Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Rashida A. Adams. In fact, she holds an exceptional professional reputation; the state’s Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave her their highest possible rating of “exceptionally well qualified”.
Google AI notes that, while her personal record is entirely clean, her position at the helm of a major appellate division places her in the public eye regarding high-profile appeals and legal system problems:
- High-Profile Appeal Scrutiny. Sittings on high-profile criminal panels mean her legal reasoning faces intense public and media tracking. For instance, Justice Adams is part of the three-judge panel weighing the highly publicized appeal of rapper Tory Lanez regarding his conviction in the shooting of Megan Thee Stallion. During oral arguments, her sharp questioning focused heavily on whether prosecutors improperly introduced statements regarding a bodyguard, illustrating the immense legal pressure and scrutiny surrounding her division’s pending rulings.
- Identifying Spurious “AI-Generated” Briefs. Justice Adams was recently involved in a notable public legal footnote regarding modern technological “problems” in the courts. In the appellate case Paperman v. Besser, Adams authored an opinion that included a footnote calling out an attorney for citing a completely non-existent case. While the court stopped short of issuing formal sanctions in that specific instance, the issue highlights her active role in policing a growing systemic concern in California courts: lawyers inadvertently using hallucinated, unchecked AI-generated legal briefs.
- Civil Rights and Whistleblower Roots. Early in her career before taking the bench, Justice Adams practiced in Washington, D.C., specializing in employment discrimination and whistleblower protection litigation. For instance, she co-authored high-profile, formal complaints alleging prohibited personnel practices against federal agency heads. While her deep background in civil rights and worker protection makes her a celebrated figure among public interest groups, it also subjects her to standard philosophical scrutiny from corporate or defense-aligned legal organizations watching for any perceived pro-plaintiff leanings in complex business disputes.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Three, Associate Justice Hanasono
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice MARK HANASONO be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary actions involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Mark K. Hanasono. Nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom in May 2025 and unanimously confirmed in June 2025, his professional record as a jurist is entirely clean.
Google AI notes that, while his record is clear of professional problems, his extensive career in the Los Angeles court system intersects with a couple of standard systemic contexts and legal trends:
- High Demand as a Trial Judge. Before joining Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeal, Justice Hanasono spent 12 years as a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he rose to become the Assistant Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division. Rather than attracting controversies, his courtroom (Department 117) was publicly highlighted by local practitioners as one of the most highly sought-after trial rooms in Los Angeles due to his reputation for meticulous fairness. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys frequently requested him to oversee complex felony cases.
- A Pure Institutional Defense Background. Before his appointment to the trial bench by Governor Jerry Brown in 2013, Justice Hanasono spent 13 years working exclusively within institutional defense. He served as a Deputy Public Defender from 2000 to 2004 and later as a Deputy Alternate Public Defender and Team Leader handling central felony trials from 2004 to 2013. While this deep expertise in criminal procedure and constitutional rights makes him highly regarded in academic circles—such as his role lecturing at the UCLA School of Law—appellate justices with purely public defender backgrounds occasionally face broad philosophical scrutiny from law-and-order advocacy groups. These organizations watch former defense attorneys closely on the appellate bench to monitor if they display structural patterns of reversing criminal convictions, though no biased or controversial rulings have been tied to Justice Hanasono’s actual judicial record.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Four, Presiding Justice Zukin
❓ Question: Shall Presiding Justice HELEN ZUKIN be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary findings involving California Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Helen Zukin. Originally appointed to the bench by Governor Jerry Brown in 2018, she was elevated to the Second District Court of Appeal in 2023 and promoted to Presiding Justice of Division Four in 2025.
Google AI notes that, while her personal and professional record is completely clean, her leadership on high-profile appellate panels intersects with a few notable legal issues and procedural items:
- Crackdown on Spurious Allegations Against Judges. Sitting on a prominent appellate division means her court must frequently step in to police systemic problems or lawyer misconduct. For instance, in August 2026, Presiding Justice Zukin authored an opinion issuing a $1,000 sanction against an attorney. In the ruling, she sternly reprimanded the practitioner, writing that the attorney had improperly “accused a lower trial judge of bias without evidence”, highlighting her active role in preserving the integrity and decorum of judicial proceedings.
- Historical Scrutiny From Past Role as JNE Chair. If you review archival legal news containing her name, you will find historical public records from her time serving as the chairwoman of the State Bar’s Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) Commission before she became a judge. In that capacity, she frequently delivered the Commission’s formal findings on judicial candidates—including delivering a rare, highly publicized “not qualified” rating for a controversial nominee. While these archived reports involve intense legal and political arguments, they reflect her historical role as an evaluator of judicial ethics, not any personal misconduct on her part.
- Recusal Request in High-Profile Civil Litigation. In September 2026, as the head of Division Four, Presiding Justice Zukin was formally sent a high-profile public request for judicial recusal from an external party regarding a pending civil appeal (Jane Doe v. Alkiviades David). The request stems from complex, historical links involving disgraced former attorney Tom Girardi’s connection to the lower court files. Such requests are common procedural maneuvers in massive, litigious civil disputes and do not imply any wrongdoing by the justice.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Four, Associate Justice Daum
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice NICHOLAS DAUM be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, disciplinary proceedings, or misconduct concerns involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Nicholas F. Daum. Nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom and unanimously confirmed in August 2026, his legal and professional record as a jurist is completely clean.
Google AI notes that, because his appointment to the appellate bench is relatively recent, a review of his confirmation record and background highlights a few specific points of standard scrutiny:
- Public Oppositions Filed During Confirmation Hearing. During his August 2026 confirmation hearing before the Commission on Judicial Appointments, two formal public oppositions were submitted against his nomination. One was from a Los Angeles attorney and the other from a private litigant. While these filings are part of the public vetting record, the Commission reviewed them, found them to be insufficient to impact his qualifications, and ultimately voted unanimously to elevate him to Division Four of the Second District Court of Appeal.
- High-Profile Media and Entertainment Background. Before his appointment to the trial bench in 2022, Justice Daum spent nearly two decades as a high-stakes civil litigator, serving as a partner at the boutique law firm Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP. His practice focused heavily on commercial disputes, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues, representing major Hollywood studios like Paramount and Viacom. While this deep corporate and media experience makes him an expert in complex civil law, appellate judges with extensive backgrounds representing large corporate entities occasionally draw philosophical scrutiny from consumer rights and labor advocates watching to ensure a balanced approach when handling individual plaintiff appeals.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Four, Associate Justice Mori
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice AUDRA M. MORI be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, disciplinary proceedings, or misconduct concerns involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Audra M. Mori. Originally appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Jerry Brown in 2018, she was elevated to Division Four of the Second District Court of Appeal by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2023. Her professional record is entirely clean.
Google AI notes that, while her personal record is clear of problems, she frequently surfaces in legal updates due to a few standard institutional and procedural contexts:
- High-Profile Ruling on Serial ADA Litigation Laws. As part of her regular caseload in Division Four, Justice Mori frequently handles complex statutory challenges that draw media attention. For instance, she and fellow Justice Helen Zukin recently presided over a high-profile appeal brought by serial litigants attempting to block California’s strict high-frequency ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) abuse laws. During oral arguments, the panel signaled a firm stance against the litigants, with Mori and Zukin indicating that restrictions on pre-litigation demands did not violate constitutional rights and that policy grievances regarding the law should be directed at the Legislature.
- Extensive Corporate Law Firm Leadership Background. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Justice Mori spent over two decades in private practice, notably serving as the managing partner of the Los Angeles office of Perkins Coie LLP from 2005 to 2018. While her extensive background in complex commercial litigation, intellectual property, and international trade makes her highly regarded for civil calendars, judges coming out of major corporate defense firms occasionally face standard philosophical scrutiny from consumer rights and labor advocates who watch closely to ensure their appellate rulings remain balanced when evaluating individual plaintiff claims against corporate entities.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Four, Associate Justice Tamzarian
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice ARMEN TAMZARIAN be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary complaints involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Armen Tamzarian. Nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom and unanimously confirmed in June 2025, his professional record is entirely clean.
Google AI notes that, while his record contains no negative incidents, his transition to the appellate bench puts him in the spotlight regarding several standard procedural and professional contexts:
- The Trial Court “Time Crunch” Challenge. During his June 2025 confirmation hearing, Justice Tamzarian discussed a major systemic problem he faced during his 12 years as a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. When asked about the biggest challenges of the judiciary, he openly noted the severe volume and pressure of the trial courts, where judges frequently lack the luxury of time to deeply contemplate complex legal issues before rendering decisions. He highlighted his transition to the Court of Appeal as a positive shift toward having the necessary structural time to thoroughly analyze complex litigation.
- Outspoken Critiques of Inexperienced Appellate Lawyers. In September 2026, Justice Tamzarian was featured in legal circles for identifying a problematic trend among trial lawyers handling their own appeals. He noted that many trial attorneys hurt their own cases on appeal because they merely rehash their old trial disputes rather than framing their arguments around specific appellate decision points. He has actively used his platform to issue guidance and non-technical advice to improve the quality of filings submitted to the appellate system.
- Background in Constitutional and Civil Law. Before taking the bench, Justice Tamzarian spent years as a partner specializing in business litigation and constitutional law. He has also been a prominent figure in the Armenian Bar Association, serving as the co-chairman of its Genocide Reparations Committee. While his extensive civil litigation background makes him an expert in intricate statutory disputes, appellate justices with specialized backgrounds are routinely monitored by both corporate defense groups and public interest advocates to ensure absolute neutrality across civil and criminal reviews.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Five, Presiding Justice Hoffstadt
❓ Question: Shall Presiding Justice BRIAN M. HOFFSTADT be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary actions involving California Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt. He possesses an unblemished reputation for intellectual rigor and integrity. First appointed to the bench as a trial judge in 2010, he served as an Associate Justice for a decade before being elevated by Governor Gavin Newsom in late 2024 to serve as the Presiding Justice of Division Five of the Second District Court of Appeal.
Google AI notes that, while his record is completely clean of personal controversies, he is highly prominent in California legal news regarding systemic legal debates, high-profile rulings, and the upcoming election:
- High-Profile Critique of a State Supreme Court Reversal. Justice Hoffstadt is unusual among appellate jurists for his willingness to publicly dissect complex legal “problems” created by higher courts. He authored a notable appellate opinion regarding hearsay evidence in probation hearings that was later reversed by the California Supreme Court (People v. Gray). Following the reversal, Hoffstadt authored an article in the Daily Journal pointing out that the high court’s new balancing test could create structural problems by “diluting the predictability” that trial courts rely on under the state’s explicit Evidence Code.
- Sounding the Alarm on “Professional PAGA Plaintiffs”. As a leading voice on complex civil litigation, Justice Hoffstadt’s opinions have directly shaped state battles over employment law. He notably issued a strong legal warning regarding the creation of a problematic class of “professional PAGA plaintiffs” under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. His analysis of “headless PAGA cases”—where individuals attempt to bypass employer arbitration agreements to file massive corporate representative lawsuits without a personal claim—stirred significant debate, prompting the California Supreme Court to step in and review the issue.
- An Unusually Balanced, Bipartisan Legal Background. While judicial appointments are frequently subject to partisan scrutiny, Justice Hoffstadt is unique because his career milestones bridge both major political parties. He was originally appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, elevated to the appellate bench by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, and promoted to Presiding Justice by Governor Gavin Newsom. Prior to his time on the bench, he built elite institutional credentials, graduating first in his class from the UCLA School of Law and clerking for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Six, Presiding Justice Cody
❓ Question: Shall Presiding Justice TARI L. CODY be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary issues involving California Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Tari L. Cody. Her professional record across nearly 26 years on the bench is entirely clean. When evaluated by the state’s Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) Commission, she received the highest possible rating of “exceptionally well qualified”. First appointed as a Ventura County Superior Court Judge in 2000, she was elevated to the appellate bench in 2023. In August 2026, she made history when she was unanimously confirmed as the first woman to serve as the Presiding Justice of Division Six (the Ventura-based branch of the Second District Court of Appeal).
Google AI notes that, while her record is free of personal or professional problems, there are a few standard career and procedural contexts to keep in mind:
- The “Hard Work” Objection Anecdote. During her judicial confirmation process, a colleague playfully noted that the only “negative feedback” the evaluation commission ever received regarding Cody was that she “worked really, really hard” and spent extensive weekends and after-hours drafting her opinions. Her peers frequently joke that her intense work ethic sets an intimidatingly high standard for the rest of the bench.
- A Legacy in Juvenile and Family Court System Stressors. Before her elevation, Justice Cody spent over two decades managing highly emotional, high-stress calendars on the trial bench, including serving as the Supervising Juvenile Judge for Ventura County. This structural background means her past decisions deal extensively with vulnerable youth, foster care systems, and family law disputes. While she is celebrated by child advocacy groups for her compassion, judges with heavy family and juvenile law backgrounds are often intensely tracked by systemic reform groups monitoring how those specialized perspectives influence broader civil and criminal appeals.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Six, Associate Justice Yegan
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice KENNETH R. YEGAN be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no ethical scandals, disciplinary proceedings, or misconduct concerns involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Kenneth R. Yegan. First appointed to the bench as a trial judge in 1983 and elevated to Division Six (Ventura) by Governor George Deukmejian in 1990, his nearly 43 years of judicial service remain entirely clean.
Google AI notes that, because of his exceptionally long tenure and his distinct, candid writing style, his record presents a few notable procedural themes and systemic critiques:
- Length of Service. Justice Yegan is appearing directly on the upcoming November 3, 2026 retention election ballot. Serving as one of the longest-tenured appellate jurists in California history, his periodic appearance on the ballot prompts standard public evaluation. In California, appellate judges do not face opposing candidates but instead undergo a simple “yes” or “no” public vote to serve another 12-year term. At the end of that term, he would have been on the appeals court for 48 years, making a total of 55 years of judicial service.
- Outspoken Critiques of Legislative “Tinkering”. Justice Yegan is well-known within the California legal community for using his published opinions to directly challenge what he views as systemic “problems” created by the state legislature. For example, in a widely cited criminal appeal (People v. Campbell), Yegan authored a blunt critique targeting the Legislature’s frequent, retroactive adjustments to criminal sentencing laws. He argued that “constant tinkering” with sentencing rules has placed an “undue burden upon the criminal justice system,” forcing trial courts to hold repetitive, exhaustive resentencing hearings that delay civil calendars and erode the legal concept of finality. While his legal philosophy favors strict judicial efficiency and finality, it frequently draws philosophical pushback from criminal defense advocates who champion those same legislative reforms.
- Deep Legal Roots in Ventura County. Because Division Six handles appeals coming strictly from Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties, Yegan’s extensive judicial legacy is deeply intertwined with local legal history. He began his career in 1972 as a Ventura County Deputy Public Defender before crossing over to serve as a trial judge and ultimately an appellate justice. This deep institutional footprint means his decades of rulings heavily influence local precedent, subjecting him to close historical tracking by regional bar associations.
- “Kenny Y” – The Mammoth Mountain Persona. On a non-judicial note, public features profile his long-standing work outside the courtroom as a volunteer ski instructor for Disabled Sports Eastern Sierra and wounded veterans. Local organizations have noted that he completely sheds his formal judicial persona on the slopes, where he is known simply as “Kenny Y”—a rare humanizing detail for an appellate jurist that has earned him local humanitarian honors rather than professional concerns.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Seven, Presiding Justice Martinez
❓ Question: Shall Presiding Justice GONZALO C. MARTINEZ be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary actions involving California Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Gonzalo C. Martinez. Originally appointed as an Associate Justice in 2023, he was elevated by Governor Gavin Newsom in May 2024 to serve as the Presiding Justice of Division Seven of the Second District Court of Appeal. His professional record as a jurist is completely clean.
Google AI notes that, while his record is clear of professional problems, his rapid rise and background within state government place him in a few notable civic and institutional contexts:
- Historical Milestone as an Openly Gay Jurist. Upon his unanimous 3-0 confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments in 2024, Martinez made history by becoming the fourth openly gay appellate presiding justice in California’s history. His confirmation was widely celebrated by civil rights organizations and diverse bar associations as a major step forward for judicial representation in Southern California.
- High Scrutiny Due to Executive Branch Ties. Before ascending to the bench, Justice Martinez spent four years serving directly in the executive branch as Governor Gavin Newsom’s Deputy Judicial Appointments Secretary. In that highly influential role, he was one of the primary advisers responsible for vetting and selecting hundreds of judges across California. While his extensive knowledge of the state’s legal talent earned him a “well qualified” rating from the State Bar, appellate judges who transition directly from political appointment roles inside the Governor’s office occasionally face standard philosophical scrutiny from external legal groups watching to ensure strict independence from the executive branch.
- Background as a State Advocate. Prior to his work in the Governor’s office, Martinez built extensive civil and criminal litigation experience serving as a Deputy Solicitor General in the California Attorney General’s Office. In that capacity, he frequently represented the state in high-stakes appeals before both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of his deep institutional background representing the state government, court watchers routinely track his civil opinions to ensure absolute neutrality when private litigants sue government entities.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Seven, Associate Justice Stone
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice NATALIE STONE be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no ethical scandals, disciplinary proceedings, or misconduct concerns involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Natalie P. Stone. Appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom and unanimously confirmed in May 2024 to Division Seven of the Second District Court of Appeal, her professional record as a jurist is completely clean.
Google AI notes that, while her career contains no negative behavioral findings, her background and prominent position intersect with a few standard institutional and procedural contexts:
- Emotional Strains of the Juvenile Dependency Calendar. Before ascending to the appellate bench, Justice Stone spent nearly a decade as a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court. A highly scrutinized portion of her trial tenure involved her assignment to the Edmund D. Edelman Children’s Court, where she managed a high-volume juvenile dependency calendar. In professional interviews, she has been candid about the immense emotional pressure and “sleepless nights” that come with making high-stakes courtroom decisions regarding child endangerment, severe neglect, and removing children from parental custody.
- Deep Corporate Litigation Roots. Prior to taking the bench in 2015, Justice Stone built a highly successful corporate civil legal career, spending ten years as a complex civil litigation associate at the elite law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. While her private sector acumen makes her an expert in sophisticated commercial and business disputes, jurists transitioning from large corporate defense firms occasionally face ideological scrutiny from consumer advocacy and labor groups watching closely to ensure a balanced approach when individual plaintiffs sue major corporations on appeal.
- Public Interest Foundation. Balancing her corporate background, Justice Stone has deep roots in volunteer legal aid. During her time at the UCLA School of Law, she served as the co-chair of El Centro Legal, a student-coordinated network that manages volunteer clinics for homeless youth, landlord-tenant disputes, and disability rights.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Eight, Associate Justice Wiley
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice JOHN WILEY be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary findings involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr.. A former tenured UCLA Law School professor and federal prosecutor, he has maintained an unblemished reputation for exceptional intellectual rigor and integrity across his 24 years on the bench.
Google AI notes that, within California legal circles, Justice Wiley is famous for his highly unique, direct, and engaging writing style. While he has no personal behavioral “problems,” his uncommonly candid opinions frequently place him at the center of intense systemic debates:
- High-Profile Stance on the Courtroom Use of “Junk Science”. Justice Wiley drew national attention for a strikingly direct concurring opinion in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District. The majority allowed a teacher’s disability claim involving “Wi-Fi sensitivity” to proceed. Wiley wrote an blunt warning about opening the floodgates to unproven medical claims, stating that “the use of expert witnesses has run riot” in Los Angeles and warning that partisan experts can easily “bamboozle a jury” with theories that lack respectable scientific support.
- Fiery Defenses of Corporate Arbitration Agreements. As a leading legal scholar on the court, Wiley has repeatedly sounded the alarm regarding the California judiciary’s systemic hostility toward private arbitration. In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the majority penalized a company for missing a strict 30-day arbitration payment deadline. Wiley filed a sharp dissent, writing that no other business contracts are voided on a hair-trigger basis and that only arbitration contracts face this “firing squad” under California law—a position that pushed the California Supreme Court to step in and review the issue.
- Recurrent Frustrations with Child Dependency Appeals. Justice Wiley has been a highly vocal critic of how California courts handle child dependency cases involving Native American heritage inquiries. He has authored numerous opinions and dissents arguing against a problematic trend where appellate courts automatically reverse parental termination orders over minor technical investigatory omissions by social workers, arguing that these rigid technicalities unnecessarily keep vulnerable children trapped in legal limbo.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Eight, Associate Justice Scherb
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice MATTHEW A. SCHERB be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary complaints involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Matthew A. Scherb. Nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom and unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments in November 2025, his professional and legal record remains completely clean.
Google AI notes that, because of his unique path to the appellate bench and the timing of his appointment, his role intersects with a few notable institutional and procedural contexts:
- Scrutiny as an Unusual “Direct Appointee”. The most notable point of discussion during his confirmation hearing centered on his path to the court. Unlike the vast majority of appellate jurists, Justice Scherb is a direct appointee, meaning he was elevated to the Court of Appeal without first serving as a local Superior Court trial judge. While direct appointments are rare in the Second District, his nomination was strongly defended by colleagues like appellate Justice Kathleen Banke. She noted that direct appointments are highly valuable for bringing exceptional, deep-dive analytical talent into the appellate courts. Before taking the bench, Scherb built elite institutional experience reviewing trial records and drafting opinions from the inside, serving for five years as a Chambers Attorney for California Supreme Court Justice Martin J. Jenkins and six years as a lead appellate court attorney in the First Appellate District.
- Immediate Retention Election Timeline. Because he was appointed mid-term to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes, Justice Scherb’s initial term is short. He is appearing directly on the upcoming November 3, 2026 retention election ballot. This is a standard constitutional requirement rather than a reflection of any performance issues. Voters will cast a simple “yes” or “no” vote to confirm whether he should be retained for a full appellate term.
- Ruling on “Anti-SLAPP” Protections for Social Media Influencers. Sitting on Division Eight means Justice Scherb routinely handles complex civil matters that shape local litigation boundaries. In October 2026, he authored a notable unpublished opinion regarding a TikTok influencer who was sued after posting a viral video critical of a plastic surgery facility’s staff. Justice Scherb ruled against the influencer’s anti-SLAPP motion, clarifying that complaints about routine receptionist service do not automatically qualify as protected free speech on a “matter of public interest,” drawing close tracking from local commercial and First Amendment attorneys.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
◊
Court of Appeals: 2nd District, Division Eight, Associate Justice Viramontes
❓ Question: Shall Associate Justice VICTOR G. VIRAMONTES be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
🤔 Discussion: According to Google AI, there are no major ethical scandals, misconduct investigations, or disciplinary proceedings involving California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Victor G. Viramontes. Originally appointed to the trial bench in 2017, he was elevated to Division Eight of the Second District Court of Appeal in late 2022 by Governor Gavin Newsom. His judicial record is entirely clean. Prior to his appellate confirmation, the state’s Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission awarded him its highest possible rating of “exceptionally well qualified”, and he was confirmed by a unanimous vote.
Google AI notes that, while his record contains no behavioral problems, his profile intersects with a few distinct institutional and legal contexts:
- Deep Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination Roots. Before ascending to the bench, Justice Viramontes spent a significant portion of his career as a civil rights advocate and federal litigator. He served as a senior trial attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and later as the National Senior Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), where he specialized in high-stakes civil rights enforcement and employment discrimination cases. While his deep background in civil liberties makes him highly celebrated by public interest and civil rights groups, it also draws standard philosophical tracking from corporate defense organizations. These business-aligned entities closely monitor judges coming out of major advocacy organizations to ensure absolute neutrality across high-value commercial liability and labor disputes.
- Clear Historical Separation on Search Results. If you are running public background checks or automated search queries under his name, you may occasionally encounter an archived labor dispute entry titled 10 ALRB No. 30 (Pioneer Nursery) stemming from an Agricultural Labor Relations Board witness record. This record involves a separate private individual and has no relation to Justice Viramontes or his judicial tenure.
None of this is a reason for disqualification.
📋 Conclusion: ✅ Retain (Yes)
