County

Two experienced leaders of the largest law enforcement agency in the country face off, four years after their first showdown, to once again helm the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Here’s what you need to know about:

The candidates

• Incumbent Robert Luna is a former Long Beach police chief who came out of retirement to run for sheriff in 2021 and unseated Alex Villanueva in the November 2022 election. Luna has presided over declines in homicides and violent crime as well as establishing a period of relative calm after Villanueva’s tenure, which was marked by controversy and scandal. Luna’s office, however, has come under scrutiny, including when a grenade accidentally exploded in a department parking lot, killing three deputies.
• Villanueva switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican in the first two years of his leadership and was a regular on Fox News vilifying “woke” culture and criticizing Democrats. Villanueva launched, then walked back, a criminal-leak investigation of a Los Angeles Times reporter, and he was ordered to testify after sheriff’s deputies took and shared pictures at the site of Kobe Bryant’s helicopter crash.

State of the race

In the primary election, Luna received 44.2% of the vote versus Villanueva’s 21.7%. Luna also has raised more money for his campaign. From Jan. 1 to Sept. 19, he had raised more than $1.3 million; Villanueva had raised a little more than $320,000.

Former Sheriff Alex Villanueva speaks to constituents Sept. 12 at a campaign stop at the Burbank Assn. of Realtors.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Issues

Staffing and retention

• Under Luna, the number of new deputies who graduated from the sheriff’s academy rose by nearly a third from 2024 to 2025, with more than 400 graduates last year, the department said. Recent data also show that retention rates have risen under Luna after a steep decline toward the end of Villanueva’s tenure.
• Villanueva claims that he keeps up with the department he once ran, and that deputies frequently complain to him about understaffing and low morale.

Crime trends

• Under Luna, violent crime has fallen every year since he took office. Between 2023, his first full year in office, and 2025, homicides fell by more than 25%. Data show that property crimes were broadly down from 2022.
• Villanueva again maintains that deputies he has stayed in touch with feel that crime has run rampant since he left office.

2028 Olympics

• Villanueva argues that Luna is ill-prepared to handle the next four years, including assisting with the Olympics.
• Luna refuted the claim by pointing to the role his department played in the multi-agency law enforcement effort to maintain public safety during the World Cup this year.

Your ballot is overflowing with decisions you need to make. Some you’ve probably heard about — Karen Bass vs. Nithya Raman for L.A. mayor, Xavier Becerra vs. Steve Hilton for California governor, the controversial billionaire tax.

But there are also some more obscure races on the L.A. County ballot that are important as well. Here are seven to keep an eye out for.

Los Angeles County sheriff

This is a rematch between rivals for the job of running the Sheriff’s Department, which also oversees county jails.

• Robert Luna is the sitting sheriff. The former Long Beach police chief, Luna came out of retirement to run for sheriff in 2022, arguing that incumbent Alex Villanueva had taken the department in the wrong direction. Luna points out that violent crime has fallen every year since he took office. Between 2023, his first full year in office, and 2025, homicides fell by more than 25%.
• Alex Villanueva was elected sheriff in 2018 in an upset victory. His tenure was marked by controversy and scandal, and he became a fixture on Fox News, where he appeared repeatedly to vilify “woke” culture and criticize Democrats. He faults Luna, claiming the department has issues with recruitment and retention. He also says the department does not have the resources it needs.

L.A. County Charter Amendment A

This measure deals with labor negotiations for key public safety personnel in L.A. County.

Basics

Measure A is a charter amendment that would require binding arbitration between county government and negotiators representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety workers if contract talks reach an impasse and no compromise can be reached. It would alter the current last step, in which county supervisors can impose a final offer that these employees must accept — by law, public safety personnel cannot strike.

Impact

The initial phase of contract talks still would have union and county representatives seeking to hammer out a mutually beneficial deal, with a presumption that both sides would negotiate in good faith. But if a gap remains and an impasse ultimately is declared, the supervisors no longer would dictate the final offer. Instead, a three-member arbitration panel would be formed. The county and union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as chair. If they can’t agree on the final panelist, a state entity could provide a list of qualified arbitrators to choose from. The arbitrators would focus on key employment elements such as wages and hours and would hold hearings and receive evidence from the parties. At the end of the process, a binding result would be issued and made public.

Read more:

L.A. County Charter Amendment E

This is a highly complicated measure that involves jail financing and seeks to clean up some bureaucratic muddles.

Basics

Jails: In 2020, 57% of county voters approved Measure J. This mandated that at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue be allocated to incarceration alternatives. The problem? Voters later approved the county reform effort Measure G, which had the unintended effect of repealing Measure J. Measure E would ensure that Measure J remains in effect.

Governance: Measure G also created, among other things, a county ethics commission and an ethics compliance office. Officials determined that for true independence, the commission and the compliance office must be permanently enshrined in the county charter.

Impact

Backers say Measure E would clean up those messy governmental issues.

L.A. County Superior Court judges

Voters will decide runoffs for four open judge seats:

• Maria Ghobadi and Rhonda Haymon are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 64 seat.
• Justin Allen Clayton and Anna Slotky Reitano are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 65 seat.
• Anthony “A.J.” Bayne and David DeJute are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 87 seat.
• Donna Tryfman and David Ross are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 131 seat.

Voters decide four runoff contests for Superior Court seats on Nov. 3, choosing who will preside over criminal and civil cases across the region.

Seat 131

The candidates

• Donna Tryfman, a deputy public defender, serves in the major cases unit, where she handles homicide and other high-profile defendants. She also has extensive experience in juvenile cases.
• David Ross is an alternate in the Torrance branch of the public defender’s office and also works in Bellflower and Long Beach. He claims to have represented more than 10,000 clients at hearings and in trials.

Dive deeper

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. rates both attorneys as “qualified” for office. Ross said his mix of legal and life experience and his time as a journalist, when he “listened to real people, gathered the facts and told objective stories,” provide a unique perspective. Tryfman has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem, handling traffic and small claims cases. She has proctored teen courts at Dorsey and Hamilton high schools.

Seat 64

The candidates

• Maria Ghobadi is an L.A. County deputy district attorney. As a child, Ghobadi fled Iran with her family during the Islamic Revolution and settled in Southern California. She joined the L.A. County district attorney’s office in 2015 and has handled misdemeanors, felonies and domestic violence cases. She’s spent seven years in the gang homicide division.
• Rhonda Haymon is an L.A. County deputy public defender. She grew up in Southern California and became an attorney in 2001. She started in the Orange County public defender’s office before moving to L.A. County, where she’s spent 23 years as a deputy public defender. She has been assigned to a restorative justice drug court and consulted on police misconduct cases.

Dive deeper

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. ranked Ghobadi as “well qualified” and Haymon as “qualified.”

Seat 87

The candidates

• David DeJute, who defended President Obama against the so-called birther claims, spent a decade as vice president of litigation at Sony Pictures Entertainment. He now works in litigation at a private firm. An adjunct professor at Pepperdine’s Caruso School of Law, he’s taught ethics, antitrust, copyright and patent law. After last year’s wildfires, he returned as director of the disaster relief clinic, where he instructed students who provided pro bono legal services to victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires.
• Anthony “A.J.” Bayne’s background includes nearly two decades serving in the Compton Courthouse, where he for a time served as deputy in charge. He’s now handling serious felony cases at the Torrance branch. Bayne is an inventor, with patent-pending applications for artificial intelligence tools that automate legal workflows. One helps with closing arguments; another uses court reporter transcripts to generate cross-examination questions.

Dive deeper

DeJute is rated “qualified” to serve by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. Bayne is rated a notch higher, “well qualified.”

Seat 65

The candidates

• Justin Allen Clayton is in charge of the Inglewood branch of the public defender’s office and has defended three cases with life sentences. Clayton said a priority is improving court efficiency through pretrial preparation and “firm but fair enforcement of deadlines.” Clayton said running a public defender branch office gives him a “comprehensive understanding” of the courtroom.
• Anna Slotky Reitano represented juvenile and adult clients, many of them accused of felonies, before joining the county counsel’s office. Reitano focused on mental health diversion and treatment, aiming to support rehabilitation when possible. A former child actor, she volunteers with local schools and, according to her website, mentors “future lawyers” through moot court competitions.

Dive deeper

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. considers both qualified to serve.

It’s finally election day and you’re ready to head to the polls to cast your ballot in California’s 2026 midterm, but you don’t know where the nearest polling location is. Or perhaps you misplaced your ballot.

Here are some common last-minute election-day hiccups and how to navigate them so you can earn your “I voted” sticker on Tuesday.

I forgot to register to vote

You can still register as a conditional voter on election day through the “same day” voter registration process.

Eligible citizens who need to register or re-register to vote within 14 days of an election can complete this process at county elections offices, polling places or vote centers.

If you’ve become a U.S. citizen fewer than 15 days before the election, you may register to vote by visiting your county elections office anytime before the polls close on election day. You must bring proof that you are a U.S. citizen and sign a form saying you are eligible to vote in California.

For all those registering, the application requires a state driver’s license or California identification card number, or you can use the last four digits of your Social Security card.

If you don’t have any of those, you can still register. You’ll be assigned a unique identifier to validate your registration.

With same-day registration, you are “conditionally” registered to vote, and your ballot is provisional. Once officials have confirmed you are registered to vote in that county, your ballot is then processed and counted.

I don’t know where my polling place is

You can look for the nearest polling place by entering your address in the “Find your polling place” tool on the California secretary of state’s website.

The Los Angeles County office of the registrar-recorder/county clerk has a vote center locator that includes the wait time to cast your ballot.

I’m here at the polling place but forgot my ballot at home

You can request a provisional ballot at any polling place in the county in which you are registered to vote.

A provisional ballot is a regular ballot that is placed in a special envelope prior to being put in the ballot box.

It’s counted once election officials verify that you are a registered voter in that county and haven’t already voted in the election.

I can’t submit my mail-in ballot myself

You can have someone else submit your ballot.

Anyone can drop off your mailed ballot as long as you authorize them to do so and they do not get paid on a per-ballot basis, according to the secretary of state.

You and the person you’ve authorized to submit your mailed ballot must fill out and sign the outside of the ballot envelope.

I forgot my check-in code for in-person voting

Los Angeles County election officials say you can check in at a vote center by scanning your “quick check-in code” — a number that verifies your voter registration.

Your unique code can be found on your mailed sample ballot and vote center postcard. Take either of those hard copies to the vote center.

If you forgot the hard copies, you can find the code online. You retrieve it by verifying your voter registration here. You’ll need to input your last name, birth date, the house number of your residential address and your ZIP Code. For assistance call, (800) 815-2666, Option 2.

I’ve heard about touch-screen voting machines not working

It’s a common issue: You touch your voting machine screen, and it doesn’t show your intended selection.

Election officials say touch-screen challenges are commonly caused by user error or an easily fixed screen miscalibration.

Flag a poll worker if you’re having difficulty. If you’ve already printed a ballot that doesn’t reflect your intended selections, don’t cast it; notify a poll worker who will follow procedures for replacing the ballot.

How late is too late to put my ballot in a ballot box?

There are three ways you can submit your mailed ballot on election day:

• You can put it in a ballot drop box. The cutoff time to do so is the same time that polls close, 8 p.m.
• Drop it off at a polling place, vote center or county elections office by 8 p.m.
• Drop it off at a United States post office. To ensure your ballot is postmarked by election day, mail it at least by Thursday — five days before Tuesday’s election. If mailing on election day, get a hand-stamped postmark from a postal employee at a U.S. post office.

Where is my nearest ballot box?

The Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office has an online tool here to help you find a ballot box near you.

I think I forgot to sign my mailed ballot envelope

If you turned in your vote-by-mail ballot and forgot to sign it, your vote will still count.

Your county elections official will notify you by mail, phone or email. You can also be notified by way of the “Where’s My Ballot?” tracking tool, which offers automatic notifications that will ping you if there are issues with your ballot.

To remedy the issue, your county elections office will provide you with a form to fill out and return completed.

The form will be given to you two days prior to the day your county certifies the election, so be sure to fill it out and return it to your county elections office right away.

How late is too late to vote at the polls on election night?

In California, any voter who is in line at 8 p.m. when the polls are scheduled to close is allowed to vote, according to the secretary of state.

If there is a line when the polls close, a poll worker stands at the back of the line to let people who arrive after 8 p.m. know that the polls have closed.

Any voter who arrives after the polls have closed may not be allowed to vote, even if voters who were in line to vote before the polls closed are in the process of voting.

Voters in the Northern California city of Vallejo passed a ballot measure adopting binding arbitration with its public employee unions more than 50 years ago, following a bitter police strike.

The goal was labor peace. Under binding arbitration, an independent referee is brought in when negotiators hit an impasse. The final decision on wages, benefits and working conditions is taken out of the hands of the local elected officials and placed squarely with the arbitrator.

With Measure A on the Nov. 3 ballot, Los Angeles County voters have a chance to do much the same thing here.

The measure is being pushed by unions representing county firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other public safety employees who by law cannot go out on strike, and who say binding arbitration adds balance to the negotiation process by taking away the unilateral authority held by the county Board of Supervisors.

No formal opposition to Measure A has been submitted. But in his summary of the potential impact this year, county chief executive Joe Nicchita shared news stories showing how binding arbitration has played out in other jurisdictions, including Vallejo.

In 2007, a mediator determined that despite fiscal travails, Vallejo couldn’t reduce the size of its fire department. Eight months later, with little budgetary wiggle room, the city declared bankruptcy.

Vallejo had been the first California municipality to adopt binding arbitration. In 2010, the voters decided to ditch it.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell voiced concerns about Measure A when the board discussed placing it on the ballot this year.

“Arbitrators aren’t elected,” she said. “They’re not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, like healthcare, capital improvements, all those things.”

The board voted 4-0 to place binding arbitration on the Nov. 3 ballot, with Mitchell abstaining. Supporters say there are sufficient protections to prevent the county from experiencing the financial tribulations that Vallejo and other cities suffered in part because of binding arbitration.

“This process opens up the books, allows the parties to come together and base decisions on facts rather than political preferences, and it also shows whether there are actually resources to meet the demands that are coming,” Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, an architect of the measure, said in an interview.

Horvath previously noted that just six of the 21 jurisdictions in California that have instituted binding arbitration, including two counties, have had to resort to it.

If a majority of county voters approves Charter Amendment A, it will cover 14 bargaining units representing some 16,500 county workers, among them lifeguards and deputy medical examiners. It would not apply to bargaining units whose workers can strike.

In the current system, if the sides are unable to reach an agreement, the supervisors can impose a final offer that the unions must accept. While contract negotiations are frequently contentious, historically the supervisors mandating final terms is rare; The Times previously reported that it has happened only twice since 2001.

Under the proposed measure, contract negotiations would begin as they do now, with the presumption that both sides bargain in good faith. However, if agreement proves impossible and an impasse is declared, a three-member arbitration panel would take over.

In that case, the county and the union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as the panel’s chair. The arbitrators would hold hearings and weigh evidence related to employment elements such as wages and hours. In the end, the binding ruling would be made public.

Derek Hsieh, executive director of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, said the current process began with a group of labor unions launching a signature-gathering drive to put binding arbitration before voters. That led to working with the supervisors and the county chief executive, who, Hsieh said, wanted to ensure there were certain safeguards.

Hsieh said binding arbitration would represent an important and balanced change.

“Currently, the employer has near unilateral control over what the contract provisions are,” he said.

He added that the threat of going before arbitrators would spur both county and union negotiators to reach an agreement before someone else takes over, and that it would prevent either side from pushing a “wild proposal” that arbitrators would quickly reject.

Dave Gillotte, president of the International Assn. of Firefighters Local 1014, which represents more than 3,000 L.A. County Fire Department employees, agrees that the very threat of winding up in binding arbitration would encourage negotiating teams to cut a deal.

“Binding arbitration really brings about leverage to move both parties to work hard to get a contract done, where we don’t have that now,” Gillotte said.

The practice of using binding arbitration to resolve union and government disputes has been around for decades.

“These are routine laws that are part of the labor relations framework,” said Justin McBride of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

The strong union support for binding arbitration would seem to suggest that the process favors organized labor over elected local governments. McBride said academic studies don’t support that premise, and that neither side overwhelmingly comes out on top.

He pointed to a 2010 study from Cornell University that examined decades of negotiation outcomes in New York. One finding was that after a few years, the number of cases that wound up in arbitration declined, indicating that the sides learned to work together.

“Everyone gets a deal, and just like in a lot of contracts maybe both parties aren’t 100% with it, but that’s kind of the nature of collective bargaining,” McBride said.

Still, there have been instances in which decisions by independent arbitrators contributed to a municipality’s economic challenges, and elected officials were unable to unwind the rulings.

In her interview with The Times, Horvath said arbitrators would be expected to make decisions that consider the county’s fiscal situation.

“That’s what this is designed to do,” she said.

While no formal opponents to Measure A are listed on the ballot, some progressive groups aren’t on board. The voter guides for community organization L.A. Forward and prison abolition proponents La Defensa both urge a “no” vote. The inclusion of the Sheriff’s Department influenced that decision.

“We believe law enforcement special interest groups should not be treated as labor or given more leverage in negotiations,” La Defensa wrote in its guide. “More money and more power for the Sheriff’s Department is the crux of our opposition. By bundling deputies with firefighters and lifeguards, Measure A weaponizes a process we would otherwise support.”

Labor unions and other supporters are digging deep. The unions representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and other employee groups reported raising $7.7 million through mid-October to campaign in favor of Measure A, according to financial disclosure reports.

No campaign funds have been reported in opposition to Measure A.

This runoff election for an open seat features two veteran attorneys with extensive experience as public defenders: Justin Allen Clayton and Anna Slotky Reitano.

Clayton is in charge of the Inglewood branch of the public defenders office and has defended three cases with life sentences.

Reitano represented juvenile and adult clients, many of them accused of felonies, before joining the county counsel’s office.

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. considers both qualified to serve. Here’s more of what you need to know about the candidates.

Justin Allen Clayton, L.A. County deputy public defender

Bar rating: Qualified

Clayton is a Los Angeles native who attended public schools, earned a bachelor’s degree in criminology and passed the bar in 2012. He joined the public defender’s office two years later and since 2023 has served as deputy in charge of the Inglewood branch.

Clayton describes himself as a “working supervisor” who conducts arraignments and represents clients at preliminary and other hearings. He has completed dozens of trials, including three with life sentences, according to his website.

The position involves overseeing and training attorneys, as well as law clerks and summer interns, on misdemeanor and felony case preparation and trial strategy.

Clayton said a priority is improving court efficiency through pretrial preparation and “firm but fair enforcement of deadlines.”

Time as a candidate, he said, has shown him the importance of effective communication within the court system in bridging language and cultural differences. He called that a guiding principle, particularly for clients who lack counsel.

“Sometimes, one additional question, or one additional statement, can make all the difference in resolving an issue,” he said.

Clayton said running a public defender branch office, which brings him in contact with judges, sheriffs, court clerks, interpreters and others, combined with 14 years as a trial attorney, gives him a “comprehensive understanding” of the courtroom.

“That combination of courtroom experience, leadership and daily interaction with the many people who make our justice system work has uniquely prepared me to serve as a Superior Court judge,” he said.

Anna Slotky Reitano, L.A. County deputy county counsel

Bar rating: Qualified

Reitano spent the early part of her career in criminal defense, contract law and other sectors. In 2014, she joined the L.A. County public defender’s office. A decade there included three years in juvenile court, where she primarily handled felony cases, and five years at the San Fernando Courthouse, where she represented indigent clients facing felony charges.

Reitano focused on mental health diversion and treatment, aiming to support rehabilitation when possible. Having a brother with schizophrenia and witnessing how families navigate the legal system when dealing with mental illness has informed her approach.

“This has given me a deeper understanding of both the challenges individuals and families face and the ways in which the system can fall short in addressing those needs,” she said.

This is not her first bid for office. She lost a campaign for a judgeship in 2022 and two years later assumed her position in the county counsel’s justice and safety division, where she supervises litigation and advises county departments.

Reitano, a former child actor, volunteers with local schools and, according to her website, mentors “future lawyers” through moot court competitions.

Campaigning, Reitano said, has shown her that constituents, no matter how different, uniformly want “a judge who is experienced, prepared, fair and willing to listen.”

“My experience across criminal, juvenile, civil, administrative and government law has uniquely prepared me to serve wherever the court needs me,” she said.

This race for an open seat pits a former U.S. assistant attorney who represented President Obama, the FBI and NASA against a seasoned Los Angeles County public defender who has taken more than 100 trials, some with three-strikes implications, to verdict.

David DeJute, who defended Obama against the so-called birther claims, spent a decade as vice president of litigation at Sony Pictures Entertainment. He now works in litigation at a private firm.

Anthony “A.J.” Bayne’s background includes nearly two decades serving in the Compton Courthouse, where he for a time served as deputy in charge. He’s now handling serious felony cases at the Torrance branch.

DeJute is rated “qualified” to serve by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. Bayne is rated a notch higher, “well qualified.”

Here’s what you need to know about the candidates.

Anthony “A.J.” Bayne, L.A. County deputy public defender

Bar rating: Well qualified

Bayne’s 31-year legal career includes more than a quarter-century as an L.A. County deputy public defender. He has taken more than 100 jury trials to verdict, including murder, special circumstances and three-strikes cases, some of which carried sentences of death or life in prison.

“Even during the [election] primary period, I continued taking cases to trial rather than continuing them, because my clients should not be prejudiced by unnecessary delay,” he said.

He spent 19 years at the Compton Courthouse, where for a time he served as deputy in charge, supervising misdemeanor trial deputies. He now is stationed in the Torrance branch, where he handles serious felonies.

Bayne is an inventor, with patent-pending applications for artificial intelligence tools that automate legal workflows. One helps with closing arguments; another uses court reporter transcripts to generate cross-examination questions.

Using AI to address the county’s heavy caseload is a priority. He argues the technology could modernize court infrastructure, aiding in case management, scheduling and document processing.

Bayne, who trains in jiujitsu and Krav Maga self-defense, said extensive jury trial experience has prepared him to be an effective judge.

“Wherever I go, people want the same things: a judge who is prepared and fair, who will listen to their side of the case, and who treats them with respect,” he said.

David DeJute, law professor/attorney

Bar rating: Qualified

The son of a late judge, DeJute has had a 35-year legal career. After graduating from law school, he clerked for a U.S. district judge and then worked at a boutique litigation firm. He spent nearly a decade as vice president of litigation at Sony Pictures Entertainment.

In 2005, he was appointed as an assistant U.S. attorney. Over more than a decade, he worked on 10 trials, including successfully defending President Obama against “birther” lawsuits that challenged his eligibility to hold office. DeJute represented the FBI and NASA in other cases.

He joined Michelman & Robinson in 2017 and is part of the complex litigation group.

An adjunct professor at Pepperdine’s Caruso School of Law, he’s taught ethics, antitrust, copyright and patent law. After last year’s wildfires, he returned as director of the disaster relief clinic, where he instructed students who provided pro bono legal services to victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires.

“I continue to provide free legal help to wildfire survivors who have asked me to stay involved,” he said, though he no longer runs the clinic.

DeJute said he has experienced discrimination as an openly gay man, which drives his desire to ensure that everyone in the justice system is treated with dignity and respect.

“Justice requires more than achieving certain results,” he said. “It requires a fair process untainted by bias.”

This runoff for a vacant seat on the bench features a longtime public defender running against a veteran alternate public defender. Both boast extensive trial experience.

Donna Tryfman, a deputy public defender, serves in the major cases unit, where she handles homicide and other high-profile defendants. She also has extensive experience in juvenile cases.

David Ross is an alternate in the Torrance branch of the public defenders office and also works in Bellflower and Long Beach. He claims to have represented more than 10,000 clients at hearings and in trials.

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. rates both attorneys as “qualified” for office. Here’s more of what you need to know about the candidates.

Donna Tryfman, L.A. County deputy public defender

Bar rating: Qualified

Tryfman began with the public defender’s office in 1998, logging more than 100 jury trials. Her experience includes supervising Eastlake Juvenile Court, where she ran a branch with 15 lawyers and represented clients in the collaborative drug court. She is stationed in the major cases unit, focusing on capital homicide litigation.

Tryfman has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem, handling traffic and small claims cases. She has proctored teen courts at Dorsey and Hamilton high schools and last year received the peer-bestowed Gideon felony attorney of the year award.

Conversations on the campaign trail have helped her understand what works and what doesn’t in the justice system.

“It has reinforced for me that experience and knowledge of the law matter enormously, but so does how people are treated when they walk into a courtroom,” she said.

Tryfman said the heavy caseload of a public defender has prepared her for the bench’s rigors. She also cited her life experience as the daughter of immigrants, a single mother and a widow who was faced with the decision of whether to discontinue life support for her husband.

“Experiences like that teach you something about responsibility, compassion and judgment that cannot be learned from a law book,” she said.

Outside the office, Tryfman spent five years as president of the California Public Defenders Assn. and chaired the Rent Stabilization Commission for the city of Beverly Hills. She has served as vice chair of the L.A. County Bar Assn.’s Conference of California Bar Assns., where she helps develop state legislative proposals.

David Ross, L.A. County deputy alternate public defender

Bar rating: Qualified

Ross has more than three decades in the legal field, but it was not his original calling. The Los Angeles native served as a legislative aide to the late U.S. Rep. Floyd Fithian (D-Ind.) on Capitol Hill, then worked as a television journalist and documentary producer in Washington, D.C., Tennessee and Kansas.

“I grew up wanting to be Peter Jennings, not Clarence Darrow,” he told The Times.

Ross passed the bar in 1994, joined the Riverside County public defender’s office the following year and began as a Los Angeles County deputy alternate public defender in 2000. He has litigated 113 jury trials, conducted more than 2,000 preliminary hearings and represented some 10,000 indigent clients. Assigned to the Torrance office since 2018, he also has worked in the Bellflower, Long Beach and Pomona branches, among others.

Ross, who lives in Long Beach, said he has spoken with more than 60 Democratic clubs, unions and other organizations on the campaign trail and frequently has heard a desire for qualified and independent judges who will listen to all sides.

A priority would be ensuring that even if a party loses, they walk out of the courthouse knowing the judge paid attention.

Ross said his mix of legal and life experience and his time as a journalist, in which he “listened to real people, gathered the facts and told objective stories,” provide a unique perspective.

As the nation hurtles toward a pivotal and divisive midterm election, it’s fair to wonder if people on opposite sides of the political spectrum will ever be able to again live peacefully as neighbors, to talk, and especially listen, to each other.

It’s a question co-directors Robert May and Barry Levinson and producer Jason Sosnoff set out to answer in the aftermath of the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It led to their five-part docuseries, “Bucks County, USA,” now on streaming on PBS.org and the PBS app, that unfolds across four years in a suburban Pennsylvania county being ripped apart by vicious school board battles poisoned by partisan personal conflicts. (The finale streams Sunday, and the full docuseries will air Oct. 29 on SoCal PBS.)

“We don’t pay enough attention to one another,” Levinson says. “We just say, ‘I’ve formed my position and I’m locked into it’ and we don’t share enough interaction where we can discuss things. Democracy requires interactions, and if we cannot find a way to find common ground, that’s my big worry.”

The series shows how Paul Martino spent a fortune supporting Republican candidates who supported reopening schools quickly after the height of the pandemic but then, more contentiously, turned their attention to the culture wars. They focused on what was being taught in the classrooms and stocked on the shelves in the school libraries, leaving teachers feeling attacked and Black families and LGBTQ+ students alienated and ostracized.

“It’s unexpected how something like that can accelerate into such a contentious situation,” Levinson says, “where well-educated people in a wonderful community can’t figure things out.”

May says national polarization is poisoning the atmosphere locally. “It became a life-or-death battle in the name of their kids, but they both felt their children would be mercilessly mistreated if they didn’t do something to save them from the other side.”

An aerial view of Bucks County, Pa., the community at the center of Robert May and Barry Levinson’s docuseries.

(SenArt Films & Baltimore Pictures)

The filmmakers followed the heated battles as people in the divided community resorted to screaming and name-calling. It frequently plays like a fun house nightmare version of “Our Town.” That’s true even of their version of the play’s Stage Manager. Two teenagers, Evi Casey and Vanessa Martino, Paul’s daughter, guide us through each episode. While the girls are best friends, Evi’s liberal mother and Vanessa’s conservative father view each other as hostile opposition.

“I think the series does a good job of showing the political division and how it affects the kids,” says Casey.

The series opens with a school choir singing “What a Wonderful World” underneath a collection of residents telling us how they’ve been berated: “I’ve been called a pedophile.” “I’ve been called a Nazi.” “I’ve been called anti-American.” “I’ve been called a dyke and a groomer.”

But the series then gets to know people in depth, allowing for far more nuance than the contentious school board meetings.

“My hope was that people can take the time to at least have a deeper conversation with somebody who they think is doing harm to their community and try and understand it better, “ Sosnoff adds. “It starts with microchanges where somebody reconsiders the way they might harm somebody else.”

Katherine “Kitty” Good Semisch, a retired Bucks County teacher and a key figure in the documentary, says the series is perfectly timed for the midterms because of its efforts to humanize everyone. “Dehumanization and demonization lead to the worst outcomes, and this kicks out from under anybody the lazy position that the people on the other side aren’t human,” she says. “Everyone is just trying to find something that works for their community.”

Sosnoff originally approached Levinson with the idea of a project that would humanize both sides, but his original idea was to bring people together at a summer camp with a facilitator so they could get to know each other better. “Barry wisely said, ‘That’s more of a sociological experiment where you’re playing God,’” Sosnoff recalls. “He said, ‘Let’s focus on a seemingly idyllic small town, like in “Our Town,” and examine what happened and why.’”

They chose Bucks County, a purple county in a purple state. “It’s not a place of extremists but people were really inflamed,” Sosnoff says, noting that some people were reluctant to speak on camera. “The climate of fear was very much alive. It was a community in trauma.”

There are brawls over policy that lead to lawsuits, but the main drama is the 2023 school board election, where the Democrats hoped to reverse the Republicans’ 6-3 majority.

While May says he is offended by “people that don’t care about other people or their right to exist,” especially when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, he emphasized that he resisted taking sides in the documentary. “When we don’t see people as human, that’s when you lose a society.”

Indeed, Sosnoff says that while it’s bad when people are marginalized and victimized by discrimination from those in power, they’d still edit episodes to keep everything balanced, occasionally saying, “We need to give conservative characters more screen time and understand their positions.” (He also says they grew to like everyone involved.)

At the center of the drama depicted in “Bucks County, USA” is a school board election and a community grappling with political division.

(SenArt Films & Baltimore Pictures)

May says he knows some viewers will be furious with this approach, but he hopes that if they watch all five episodes, they’ll get a full picture. “You can’t just see parts of it. You need to see in order,” May says. “People reveal who they are over the five episodes. There’s an extraordinary amount of nuance, but if somebody’s saying something stupid, we have that too.”

(And don’t mistake May’s efforts at evenhandedness for a lack of passion — the day after a 30-minute joint interview with Levinson, he called me back and talked, largely uninterrupted, mostly about bias and perceptions.)

Amazingly, most people interviewed from both sides in the community support the final version.

At the center of the action are Vanessa’s mother, Aarati Martino, who ran for school board as a Republican, and Paul, who poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into school board elections.

“Overall, I am pleased,” Paul Martino says now. “There’s some things I think don’t portray the facts exactly quite right, but they recorded 500 hours and you’re not going to love everything that’s on the screen. Everybody is represented in this film.”

Martino, who never really owns the impact of him using his fortune to try to elect cultural conservatives, says he’s been “unfairly attacked” and has become “a convenient boogeyman in some of the scenes. But I’m actually not even upset about that piece of the puzzle.” (What he feels is lacking is that in 2021 he says 30% of the 300 candidates he funded around the state were Democrats.)

And Donte King, whose family endures racism both subtle and blatant, praises the filmmakers’ attempts to humanize people with contrasting viewpoints, saying he was pleased with getting to tell his story. “It allows people to connect with you,” he says. “We might have different ideologies, but we’re more alike than we are unalike, so maybe somebody who votes blue will identify with someone who votes red and vice versa.”

The closest thing to a hero in the series may be Semisch, a liberal, who shows civic courage in her efforts to build bridges, meeting one-on-one with Vonna DeArmond, a conservative elementary school teacher, and organizing events like an ice cream social and a candle-making evening. (Martino also posted an online peace offering, saying he’d buy anyone from the other side drinks; Semisch was the only one to take him up on it, but several people interviewed, including May, say Martino’s unbending personality may explain the lack of response.)

Semisch wishes that May had fact-checked some of the misleading claims by the right, but she praises the series’ subtlety. “I understand people’s frustration, but they’re leaving it to the audience to sort out who’s making sense,” she says. “My side was advocating for more books in the library and for better training for teachers to navigate difficult topics. As you watch, it seems to me that the people on the other side aren’t making as much sense.”

Near the end of the series, there’s one sweet moment of coming together between Evi’s and Vanessa’s mothers and another moment of seemingly genuine outreach by one of the town’s conservatives to King. But there’s also plenty of acrimony and recrimination in the aftermath of the school board election and one final confrontation between King and Paul Martino at a roundtable that leaves little doubt that tensions are still simmering.

Still, May says, “I remain hopeful and optimistic because I’ve seen the humanity in all of them. I think things are better there now than when we started.”

Semisch, with DeArmond, will lead discussions about the series in Bucks County and May hopes others will follow suit around the country. He and Levinson hope that by strengthening local communities, it can eventually lead to stronger national bonds. “Maybe people can learn from them. Maybe this series is literally the beginning of a change.”

Sosnoff is a bit more measured in his final assessment, quoting a participant as saying, “We haven’t buried the hatchet yet, but it’s been put away in the closet,” he says. “I’ll take that as progress.”

Los Angeles County voters are concerned about a host of voter fraud issues that could disrupt the Nov. 3 general election, even though they have a high degree of confidence in local elections officials, according to a new poll funded by the nonprofit California Community Foundation.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents expressed concern that false rumors and misleading information online could confuse voters or make them believe that their vote won’t count, the poll found. Other top concerns included politicians interfering with the election and mail-in ballots getting lost, stolen or delayed.

Still, most of the voters surveyed expressed confidence in the county’s handling of election proceedings, with 68% saying L.A. County does an excellent or good job at running elections and counting ballots.

Once presented with information about how the county handles elections, that number rose to 72%. Around three-quarters of respondents also believe that the upcoming election will be fair, secure and accurate, the poll found.

The online poll was conducted from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 by Tulchin Research, a San Francisco-based public opinion firm. It surveyed 500 voters in L.A. County considered likely to cast ballots in the Nov. 3 election and has a margin of error of 4.4%.

“Voters feel good about the local officials running their elections. So, reinforcing the fact that that is who’s in charge of the election and how the process works is reassuring to folks,” said Ben Tulchin, the polling company’s president. “It … reduces their anxiety about some of the outside criticism that California, L.A. County faces.”

The poll was funded by the California Community Foundation, which awards millions of dollars in grants to local charitable groups, to support the “A Count You Can Trust Coalition,” an initiative aimed at enhancing trust in local elections.

Recent polling has suggested that potential federal interference in the Nov. 3 election is a top concern statewide for California voters. The local poll was administered to shed light on how L.A. County voters feel, said former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who co-chairs the A Count You Can Trust group with Miguel Santana, who leads the California Community Foundation.

“This is the epicenter of the California vote,” Villaraigosa said. “The concern is not as great as it is statewide. Here in L.A. County, people seem to trust the vote to a greater degree.”

A recent poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 61% of California voters identified interference by the Trump administration as a “major concern.” President Trump has fueled doubts over election integrity, spreading unverified claims of widespread voter fraud in blue states such as California.

Young voters and Latino voters expressed the lowest levels of confidence in how the county runs elections, the new poll found. The findings suggest those demographics need “a lot more reassurance” that elections are safe and that their votes matter, Tulchin said.

“It’s not surprising at all, and it means we’ve got work to do,” Villaraigosa said. “We got a lot of work to do to communicate to those people and to make it clear that, in fact, this vote can be trusted.”

Villaraigosa said he plans to focus his efforts on social media engagement and creating video content with poll workers to speak on how vote-counting works in the county.

The poll also asked respondents whether “things in Los Angeles County are going in the right direction or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?” Most — 62% — said wrong track, and 26% said right direction.

Among voter concerns in the upcoming election, 18% listed the economy, the cost of living and inflation as their biggest worry, followed by election integrity, fraud and interference at 17% of respondents. Concerns about Republicans and Trump “winning or retaining power” came in third, with 16% of respondents saying that is their biggest concern.

Homelessness and immigration, two issues that have been prominent the L.A. mayoral race between incumbent Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman, ranked low in the list of concerns for the surveyed voters. Tulchin noted that the focus of the survey was on election integrity, which could have had an effect on what issues were top of mind of respondents.

The survey findings indicate that L.A. County voters seem to trust the county more than voters statewide. Still, just over 30% of surveyed voters have a fair or poor view of how the county runs elections, Villaraigosa said.

“They’re concerned, but what we found in this poll is that there are a number of people who, while concerned, do trust this county,” he said.

For the past eight years, a small group of influential Ventura County Republicans has played a pivotal role in the selection of every new judge in the Superior and Municipal courts.

Working out of the public eye, this little-known group of judicial advisers has helped pick almost half the judges now serving in the Ventura County courts–its recommendations almost always accepted by Gov. George Deukmejian.

The most influential of the advisers–according to several sources–is Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, who has helped secure judicial appointments for nine assistant prosecutors out of the 11 judgeships that have opened up since Deukmejian’s election in 1982.

In addition to Bradbury’s input, three of the county’s top Republican Party stalwarts serve as an informal judicial screening panel for Deukmejian.

They are Paul Leavens of Ventura, former county campaign chairman for Deukmejian; Gwen Tillemans of Oxnard, county Republican chairwoman; and Katherine H. Haley of Ojai, a major Republican fund-raiser.

The four have helped give a conservative and prosecution-oriented shape to the county’s bench for years to come, but whether they will enjoy a similar advisory role in the administration of Republican Gov.-elect Pete Wilson remains to be seen.

Leavens, Tillemans and Haley say that, in the informal structure of the county panel’s makeup, they see themselves as a separate panel of political advisers to the governor that usually checks with Bradbury before making judicial recommendations to Deukmejian.

Leavens is among those who candidly admit that Bradbury is probably the most influential of Deukmejian’s local advisers, an opinion shared by many in the legal community.

“The district attorney in Ventura County, as I recall, is a very influential person,” said Charles Vogel, president of the California Bar Assn. “I think that he’s not shy about expressing his views and I think that he will endeavor to influence the composition of the court, since it’s important to him.”

“It is not sufficient for Kay Haley to say, ‘Gee, I’d like you to make Chuck Campbell a judge now,’ ” said Wendy Lascher, president of the Ventura County Bar Assn., referring to Municipal Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr.

“That’s how the governor gets the ideas for choosing who to nominate, and if it comes down to one or the other it makes a difference,” Lascher added. “I suspect Mike Bradbury has had more influence than the rest of those people put together.”

And Leavens conceded:

“I would never send a recommendation to the governor without checking with Mike. He’s probably the most influential one of all. He’s in and out of the courts. He knows who they are.”

Bradbury downplays his role in picking the county’s judges, insisting that the governor’s office consults the local district attorney on judicial openings in every county in California.

That statement is supported by Terry Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary, but disputed by a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner in Los Angeles, a Democrat, who said Deukmejian never consults Reiner or any other Democratic head prosecutors around the state.

“I’m treated no differently than any other district attorney in the state . . . the governor’s office seeks our input and we provide it if we have the pertinent information,” Bradbury said. “The governor is clearly his own person when it comes to judge appointments and he does not simply rubber-stamp the recommendations of others.”

Nonetheless, Bradbury said that all 11 judges appointed by Deukmejian in the last eight years were recommended by him during the initial review process, including the nine former prosecutors from Bradbury’s office.

All the judges are white, nine of the 11 are Republicans and all but one are men.

Deukmejian appointed five out of the 15 sitting Superior Court judges, including Robert C. Bradley in 1984 and Barbara A. Lane, Kenneth R. Yegan, Frederick A. Jones and Edwin M. Osborne in 1986. All were elevated from Municipal Court positions. Osborne, a Democrat, is now presiding Superior Court judge.

Deukmejian also installed half of the 12 Ventura County Municipal Court judges, including Democrat Herbert Curtis III in 1984, John R. Smiley in 1986, Barry B. Klopfer in 1987, Charles W. Campbell Jr. and Ken W. Riley in 1988 and Thomas J. Hutchins in 1989.

Lane and Smiley, the only non-prosecutors, were appointed from private practice.

Bradbury’s influence in the judicial selection process, especially the elevation of Municipal Court judges to the Superior Court, brought an expression of concern from one expert on legal ethics, Dean Gerald F. Uelmen of the Santa Clara University School of Law.

“I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a conflict that should preclude him from serving on the committee, but I think it’s a legitimate concern,” Uelmen said. “The danger would be that a judge would be more reluctant to rule against the D.A. on an issue that comes before him, for fear that it would jeopardize his prospects for advancement.”

Bradbury retorted:

“Gerry’s comment is the typical BS that he throws out on this and every other issue where he takes a very pro-defense point of view. I’ve never had any judge try and curry favor with me for any reason.”

Bradbury said he has “a fairly combative relationship” with Ventura County’s judges who dislike the fact that his policy against plea bargaining forces 12% to 15% of cases to trial, compared with 5% to 7% in most other counties.

Bradbury vehemently insisted he is “not on any committee” and added that “my views do not carry the kind of weight people attribute to me.” He said that Deukmejian’s office also consults with Sheriff John V. Gillespie on some appointments. Gillespie was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Each of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees in Ventura County began the selection process by calling or being recommended by someone on the informal three-member review panel, Leavens said.

Panel members never meet to discuss their work, but they often call each other and Bradbury to confer on nominees, said Leavens, whose Ventura-based Leavens Ranches company owns more than 1,000 acres of citrus and avocado orchards in Ventura and Monterey counties.

Each sends a letter of recommendation to Deukmejian’s office only “after conversing with people that know these people and learning who is well-respected, who has a good reputation and who would not embarrass the governor,” Leavens said.

Haley, a third-generation Ventura County resident described by some as “Mrs. Republican” in Ventura County, said she agrees with Leavens’ description of their work.

“The gist of it is that when there were people who had contacted us that were interested in serving as a judge . . . we investigated whether they were qualified people who could do the job. We’d write a letter and send it to the governor,” Haley said. “He wouldn’t always take our suggestion.”

Bradbury said that party loyalties play no role in his recommendations to Deukmejian. As for the fact that nearly all of Ventura County’s judges are Republican, he said:

“I have a hunch it’s because people that go into law enforcement organizations, for example, prosecutors, tend to be Republican. But we’ve got our share of Democrats in the office.”

Although the three review panel members do not automatically reject Democrats, Leavens and Tillemans said they screen the legal records, family background and political views of potential nominees to make sure that they will hew to Republican philosophies.

“Through the years, we’ve had so many judges that were very lenient in so many ways . . . so we look for the good Republican principles,” Tillemans said. Asked to outline the principles that are reflected in nominees’ legal briefs and judicial rulings, she said, “It’s more government by the people than government for the people.”

However, the three said that they do not delve into nominees’ personal lives.

“The kind of people we were talking to were all law-abiding citizens that were well-known in the legal community. Besides, isn’t that against the law anyway?” Haley said. “I never had anybody talk to us that had murdered anybody or threw his wife downstairs.”

And Leavens said they do not concern themselves with the nominees’ drinking habits or marital fidelity. “I think those things you wouldn’t have to ask about. You’d hear about them from other sources. Anybody that wants to go up is essentially pretty clean.”

The process of settling on a recommendation can take four to six months, said Tillemans, who when not working for her party promotes housing developments for the Dolphin Group, a Los Angeles-based lobbying and public relations firm with strong Republican political connections.

“We go over their resumes and we recommend the ones who we think are suitable and then the governor’s appointment secretary looks over them and it goes to Deukmejian,” she said.

But before Deukmejian makes any appointment, each nominee is reviewed by the state Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission, a panel of 20 lawyers and six lay people, which does extensive background checks.

The so-called Jenny Commission also reviews a seven-page questionnaire in which each nominee lists experience on the bench and at the bar, outlines political affiliations and personal history, and answers the question, “Why do you want to be a judge?”

Once that process ends, the commission rates each nominee as extremely well qualified, well qualified, qualified or “not ready for appointment at this time,” Flanigan said.

After reviewing the commission’s recommendations and letters on the nominees from local bar associations, the governor picks the nominee he feels is best suited for the slot, Flanigan said.

But this process could change in January–after what is sure to be a flurry of appointments by the outgoing Deukmejian–when Sen. Pete Wilson becomes governor, legal experts and Wilson associates agree.

Wilson has relied on an eight-member merit selection committee to make initial recommendations for federal judge appointments in the Central District of California. The panel included U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, U.S. District Judge William D. Keller and California Supreme Court Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, who also served while a federal district judge.

Although critics on the federal bench challenged the propriety of letting federal judges help name their colleagues when the Wilson committee’s makeup was first revealed in 1986, the panel has continued to advise Wilson on federal judicial nominees. Federal judges are appointed by the President upon the recommendation of legislators.

And if Wilson’s taste in federal judges is any guide, his appointments to the state bench will differ to some degree from Deukmejian’s, said Vogel, the state bar association chief.

“It appears he is impressed with people who have good academic records,” Vogel said of Wilson. “If you look at his federal appointments, many of them were high achievers in college or law school.”

Vogel continued, “Deukmejian was the attorney general, he did work with prosecutors, he did work with government lawyers. He was pretty proud of them and felt somewhat in line with them and felt their expertise in government would fit them well in the bench.”

However, Wilson’s method of weeding out unwanted nominees probably will change for state appointees because state law requires nominees to be reviewed by the Jenny Commission, said John G. Davies, a San Diego lawyer who served as Wilson’s judicial selection adviser.

“Deukmejian and all the other governors in my lifetime have had local screening committees. I have no idea what Pete’s intentions are on that,” Davies said.

“We have over 4,000 judicial applications on file for Deukmejian,” Flanigan said. He predicted the lame-duck governor will fill many of the judicial vacancies before leaving office. “I think he’ll look at it as his greatest legacy.”

The retirement last week of Presiding Municipal Judge Lee E. Cooper Jr. virtually guarantees that Deukmejian’s local advisers will have further impact on the bench before Wilson takes office.

The Jenny Commission already has pumped nominees through the pipeline and readied them for the governor’s final approval, and the local advisers have made their recommendations for new openings, Bradbury said.

“It’s my sense that Deukmejian will fill every opening that he has available before he leaves office because the judiciary was a very important issue for him,” Bradbury said.

Once Wilson takes office, he will find the California justice system far larger and more of a challenge–with 1,500 judgeships–than the federal system he is accustomed to, said Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary.

Flanigan, who has been asked to keep his job through the first year of Wilson’s term, said that relying on a fixed group of people for input “would not be reasonable,” even though “there are lawyers and non-lawyers who we may talk to in the Deukmejian or future Wilson administration.” The ideal situation, he said, “is to talk to as broad a group as possible.”

Flanigan said the work of local advisers such as Bradbury, Leavens, Tillemans and Haley is vital to selecting the nominees that his office sends to the Jenny Commission–that is, the nominees who have a shot at being appointed by the governor.

“Wilson will follow the same road as Deukmejian in appointing conservative judges,” Tillemans predicted, “and we’re on that governor’s council now.”

Leavens’ wife, Carolyn Leavens, who was chairwoman of Wilson’s campaign in Ventura County, said she made a recommendation on one of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees–a duty she would gladly repeat for Wilson.

Bradbury, who actively campaigned for Wilson this year, said he is uncertain what his role will be in helping the new governor select future Ventura County judges.

But he added, “I would hope that Sen. Wilson would continue to seek the input of local public officials.”

Carlos Dammeier, administrative law judge, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
Bar rating: Qualified

Dammeier began in law enforcement, working for a decade as a dispatcher, jailer and police officer. He went to law school and, for a quarter-century, represented police and other public-sector unions, “handling employee rights cases at every level from administrative hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said in an email.

In 2013, The Times reported, a law firm in which he was a named partner dissolved after two Costa Mesa City Council members sued one of his clients, the city police union, over legal and political tactics the politicians asserted were overly aggressive.

Dammeier recently said his team was the focus of “antiunion attacks by political forces” and said that after multiple investigations, none of the firm’s attorneys faced charges or disciplinary action.

In 2022, Dammeier became an administrative law judge. His campaign website states he has heard and issued decisions in more than 2,000 unemployment, disability and tax appeal cases.

Priorities are addressing case backlogs and making thoughtful, unbiased decisions.

“Win or lose, everyone needs to know they had fair treatment by our courts,” he said.

He ran for Superior Court seats in Merced and San Bernardino counties in March 2024, losing both races, and also ran unsuccessfully in San Bernardino County in 2016.

David Ross, deputy alternate public defender
Bar rating: Qualified

Ross worked as a legislative aide for an Indiana Democrat in Congress and as a TV reporter and documentary producer before becoming a lawyer in 1994, according to his campaign website.

His legal career began in Riverside County, where he served five years as a deputy public defender. In 2000, he became a Los Angeles County deputy alternate public defender in regional branches, including Long Beach and Compton. He has been at the Torrance office since 2018.

Ross, according to his website, has represented more than 10,000 indigent defendants and completed more than 110 jury trials.

A priority would be ensuring people feel recognized in his courtroom.

“My goal is to hear everyone out, so that even if a party ultimately loses, they will walk out of court knowing the judge listened,” he said in an email.

Troy W. Slaten, administrative law judge, state Department of Industrial Relations
Bar rating: Qualified

After roles as a child actor on “Cagney and Lacey” and “Parker Lewis Can’t Lose,” Slaten began a two-decade law career in 2005.

He first worked as a private criminal defense attorney, then spent 11 years at an international firm where he focused on criminal, civil and administrative law and, for a time, managed the criminal defense division. He’s regularly cited as a legal analyst on TV and in The Times.

Slaten volunteered as temporary Superior Court judge from 2016-20 and in 2021 became a full-time administrative law judge presiding over workers’ compensation hearings.

“I have uncovered fraud and have helped when injured workers have been denied healthcare and other benefits,” he said in an email.

He has twice run for Superior Court, falling short in 2020 and 2022.

He would prioritize fairness and efficiency. “I would work to ensure cases move forward in a timely and organized manner while preserving due process,” he said.

Outside the courtroom, Slaten announces and deejays UCLA men’s and women’s water polo games.

Donna Tryfman, L.A. County deputy public defender
Bar rating: Qualified

A deputy public defender since 1998, Tryfman has had assignments countywide. From 2016-19, she supervised 25 attorneys and mentored new hires as deputy in charge of Eastlake Juvenile Court. She’s worked in collaborative drug court, coordinating with prosecutors, judges and others to help individuals dealing with addiction.

Her current assignment is in the Major Crimes Unit, where she exclusively handles homicides with special circumstances.

Tryfman spent five years as president of the Public Defenders Assn., according to her campaign website, and has proctored a high school program on civic duties and constitutional principles. She has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem, handling traffic and small claims cases. She received the peer-decided Gideon Award as felony attorney of the year in 2025, her bio states.

“I would champion further access to justice by exploring and expanding digital access to the courts in underserved communities,” she said.

WASHINGTON — The Arlington County Board in Virginia filed a lawsuit Thursday opposing the construction of the Triumphal Arch, becoming the first governmental body to take legal action against President Trump’s planned monument.

The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, criticized the speed at which the project slated for Memorial Circle has moved without going through the full review process.

“The National Park Service, the agency responsible for projects on national park land such as Memorial Circle, is proceeding full-speed toward ground-disturbing construction,” the lawsuit said. “Although the agency has claimed that a final decision to construct the Arch has not yet been made and purports to be engaged in a routine decisional process, that rushed process appears to be a pretext designed to shore up justifications for building the Arch in accordance with the President’s repeated marching orders.”

The lawsuit asks that “the agency’s feverish pace toward construction of the arch” be halted to ensure that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act be followed and proper analysis and testing be done.

“The Arlington County Board has filed this lawsuit because our community has the most to lose from this egregious and unlawful proposed project,” Arlington County Board Chair Matt de Ferranti said in a statement. He added that the county has acted in good faith in the review process, pointing out the “severe, unique, and wide-ranging negative impacts” the project will have on the county and its residents, only to see them ignored.

Memorial Circle sits on federal parkland west of the Potomac River across the Memorial Bridge and immediately adjacent to Arlington County.

The county is being represented in the lawsuit by legal advocacy group Democracy Forward.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle said the Trump administration and White House have been “fastidiously compliant with all procedural and legal requirements and are certain this meritless and dilatory lawsuit will be dismissed.”

The arch will become one of the world’s most iconic landmarks, he added. “It will enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike.”

The lawsuit came a day after the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA President Sara Nelson expressed concerns that the 250-foot arch compounds multiple safety issues that she said have gone unaddressed since a deadly January 2025, crash over the Potomac River that killed 67 people. Nelson also criticized Trump’s plan to turn the arch into “a top grade military complex” able to host drones and snipers while storing ammunition.

Though the arch has received early approval from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were all tapped by Trump, a group of three veterans and an architectural historian sued in federal court in Washington, D.C., saying the project needs to be approved by Congress. The judge in that lawsuit said the administration must give the court 48 hours before undertaking any activities related to or in preparation for construction of the arch.

The arch is one of several projects around Washington that Trump has undertaken as he remakes the city, from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath presented a motion Tuesday calling for “bold action” to better protect victims of domestic violence and stalking, seeking to help them more effectively navigate the county’s restraining order system and obtain court-ordered protection.

Horvath cited recent Los Angeles Times reporting on the challenges victims face when obtaining and enforcing restraining orders as an inspiration for the Board of Supervisors motion, which was co-authored by board chair Hilda Solis. The supervisors are scheduled to consider the measure during the board’s Nov. 10 meeting.

“A recent story from the L.A. Times spoke to the process of domestic violence restraining orders and the work done and not being done across the county to support survivors in need of this critical support,” Horvath said.

The Times’ reporting identified at least 63 women killed in 2024 and 2025 in L.A. County whose cases involved a former partner or close relative arrested or charged with their murder. The deaths accounted for more than 40% of the 156 women killed during that period. At least 10 of those women had filed for restraining orders.

In July 2024, the county Department of Public Health’s Office of Violence Prevention issued a report with more than a dozen recommendations for reducing domestic violence homicides by improving access to restraining orders. Today, most of those recommendations have not yet been implemented.

The office said the delay was the result of insufficient funding and challenges with coordinating between the many agencies responsible for the county’s restraining order system.

If passed, the motion would mandate reports from the county’s chief executive, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and the departments of Public Health, Mental Health, Consumer and Business Affairs, Public Social Services, and Homeless Services to assess current efforts, improvement plans and additional funding needs.

“We know that domestic violence restraining orders protect survivors and I believe the board must take every step possible to better support and protect our survivors,” she said. “The county,” she added, “must step up and lead in this space.”

The motion calls for allocating millions of dollars annually to fully fund nine county-run self-help legal centers that assist people navigating the restraining order process.

It would also officially identify “Gender-Based Violence and Intimate Partner Violence” as a priority for the Board of Supervisors, and require a presentation from the Sheriff’s Department on how the agency plans to improve its handling of restraining orders.

The Office of Violence Prevention would be required to develop a plan for a “peer navigator model” to guide survivors through the restraining order system.

The Department of Homeless Services and Housing would be asked for an assessment of what additional resources would be necessary to provide emergency beds for all people fleeing intimate partner violence.