Get the facts on the California candidates running for election to the Judge, Seat 4 — Los Angeles County Superior Court
Find out their top 3 priorities, their experience, and who supports them.
Find people and organizations you trust. We'll highlight the candidates they endorse.
* Superior Court Commissioner, Los Angeles County (2015- present)
* Non-profit Attorney (2002-2015); helped clients assert rights; removed barriers and helped them access justice
* J.D. UCLA School of Law, 2001
* B.A. Political Science and Chicana/o Studies, UCLA 1997
Voters need to know that the candidate has integrity and is well qualified to be a judge. A voter should look at the candidate's background, legal experience and dedication to public service.
Courts and judges need to be aware of the diversity of the public it serves; including the various obstacles faced by court users. Access to justice and the legal system includes: having interpreters available for monolingual speaking court users; ensuring that litigants understand the court process (signage and information in their native language); court websites that are user friendly and easy to navigate; referrals to the courts own self-help centers or facilitators. Courts and judges need to understand the needs of the diverse populations they serve and make decisions that are both practical and empathetic when adjudicating cases. The public need to know that they will be treated with dignity and respect and that their voice matters.
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye convened a committee of judges to explore the current money bail system. The committee made various recommendations, including a new system based on pretrial assessments of a defendant's flight risk and danger to public safety. The committee raised valid concerns on how the system can be improved.
How can courts and judges better assure that all people have adequate access to the legal system?
It is import that courts and judges become aware of the diverse needs of the communities that we serve and then educate ourselves about the resources available to assist litgants that appear before us daily. We need to collaborate with organizations and public agencies that offer social services to the public at low or no cost. It is our obligation not only to ensure that all litigants have access to the courty sytstem, but to make sure the court users are treated with dignity and respect. We all need to have empathy when applying the law to the facts of a give case and to ensure the public feels heard.
A candidates broad based legal experience as an accomplished trial lawyer, ethical, integrity, fair to all people, and having excellent temperament, should be the voter's utmost priorities in evaluating a judicial candidate. In evaluating my judicial candidacy, please consider:
A Judge can assist people to have more effective access to the legal system by being a good listener, respectful to all persons, not failing to rule, and issue decisions that are simple to understand and well reasoned. Sometimes litigants (including persons representing themselves), fail to follow legal procedure and/or fail to establish a legal element in proving up a matter. An understanding judge can assist without being an advocate for the individuals cause of action. A judge should point out what is lacking so the individual may decide if they wish to proceed or withdraw their request and amend their motion to conform to what is legally required.
California’s system of imposing bail on defendants was in dire need of reform. Today, that bail system has fundamentally changed; if a court finds a defendant does not have the financial ability to pay the bail, the court is obligated to consider less restrictive alternatives to continued confinement in jail.
In his 1979 State of the State address, then Governor Brown called the California bail system an unfair "tax on poor people [who] languish in the jails of this state even though they have been convicted of no crime. Their only crime is that they cannot make the bail that our present law requires." He urged the Legislature to find "a way that more people … can be put on a bail system that is as just and as fair as we can make it." The Legislature ignored him.
In her 2016 State of the Judiciary Address, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, told the Legislature it cannot continue to ignore “the question whether or not bail effectively serves its purpose, or does it in fact penalize the poor.” Questioning whether money bail genuinely ensures public safety or assures arrestees appear in court, the Chief Justice suggested that better risk assessment programs would achieve the purposes of bail more fairly and effectively.
In Re: Kenneth Humphrey, decided on January 25, 2018, fundamentally changed the bail system in California. The ruling involved Jeffrey Humphrey, 63, a retired shipyard worker and lifelong drug addict. He was charged with mugging a 79-year-old man who uses a walker and lives in the same apartment building. Humphrey slipped into the victim's room, threatened to put a pillow case over his head, was given $2, stole another $5 and lifted a bottle of cologne. His bail was assessed at $350,000. The standard 10% fee to a bail bond agent would have cost $35,000. Humphrey was incarcerated for months pending trial.
The appellate court unanimously ruled that "by setting bail in an amount it was impossible for [Humphrey] to pay," it in effect amounted to a violation of "due process protections" guaranteed by the Constitution. The justices said the suspect was entitled to a new bail hearing at which the court must consider "his ability to pay" and "nonmonetary alternatives to money bail."
A court may not order pretrial detention unless it finds either that the defendant has the financial ability but failed to pay the amount of bail the court finds reasonably necessary to ensure his or her appearance at future court proceedings; or that the defendant is unable to pay that amount and no less restrictive conditions of release would be sufficient to reasonably assure such appearance; or that no less restrictive nonfinancial conditions of release would be sufficient to protect the victim and community.
Because a judicial election is nonpartisan and apolitical, I believe it would be inappropriate to describe my political philosophy. Each person who takes the oath of judicial office, must not consider their pollical views in any way when addressing cases, controversies or issues that come before them. A judge should address each case on its own merits without any regard for their own political or religious philosophy. As a judicial officer, I will faithfully follow and enforce the laws of the United States and the State of California as proposed by the Legislative Branch, approved by the Executive Branch, and interpreted by the Appellate and Supreme Courts.
The Voter's Edge California voter guide provides in-depth information about what's on your ballot. Enter your address to get a personalized list of candidates and ballot measures, including biographies, top priorities, who supports each candidate, and more. The voter guide includes descriptions of each California ballot measure and who is spending money for and against each measure. With Voter’s Edge, you have all the election information you need at your fingertips.
The content on this site is licensed with a Creative Commons license. Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC