Our picks for Los Angeles County judges

Voters in Los Angeles County’s June primary have no more important duties than electing a Supreme Court judge. A fair, expedient justice system simply does not exist without intelligent, reasonable, compassionate, and legally knowledgeable people serving on the bench.

For a variety of reasons, however, voters have the hardest time deciding who to choose among candidates running for open or contested seats.

This is where we come in. We surveyed all judge candidates to understand their legal backgrounds and judicial philosophies. They replied that many were eloquent and keen to do justice. We took a closer look at key bar association rankings, which score candidates on four labels: Unqualified, Qualified, Qualified, and Very Qualified.

Here are our endorsements of the High Court seats selected in the June 7 ballot:

No. 3: Voted for challenger Tim Reuben, rated qualified by attorney, although, yes, current Sherilyn Peace Garnett is highly qualified. But Garnett has just been confirmed by the Senate to the federal bench. Reuben is a graduate of Harvard Law School and has 40 years of experience in the county. Judicial philosophy: “Know the law, carefully weigh evidence and facts, and make a judgment. Then, as a final thought, decide whether the judgment is fair and just.”

No. 60: Vote for Sharon Ransom. During her 17-year tenure as deputy district attorney, she called the root of the crime “the breakdown of our community and the failure of our society to provide the necessary resources and opportunities to ensure that every child has an equal opportunity.”

No. 67: Voted for Fernanda Maria Barreto. Her opponent, Ryan Dibble, is backed by the police union; not good looking. She has the support of the Deputy District Attorney, but is reform-minded: “The court should recognize its personal and economic impact on the parties involved to avoid a ruling that exacerbates harm. The court should be for everyone, including those who lack resources and expertise. Where people can get justice.”

No. 70 votes for current Deputy District Attorney Chief Renee Chang, who is responsible for “prosecuting cases involving our most vulnerable victims, children. In addition to molestation and child abuse cases, I also prosecute cases involving domestic violence, elder abuse, hate crimes and sexual As a judge, I will continue to uphold the constitutional rights of all people, including victims, with an emphasis on public safety.”

Kevin McGurk got the 90th vote. We also love Melissa Lyons in this game. Both were rated as passable by the bar. But we’re impressed that McGurk’s opposition lawyers are still able to hit jurors just because of their poor experience with law enforcement: the spirit of banning strikes on jurors based on race. “

116th voted for David Gelfound, rated very qualified. He helped create the juvenile court program at Northridge College High School, where students interact with judges and attorneys and decide cases involving other high school students.

Vote No. 118 for Clint McKay. Already a presiding administrative law judge, he said the crime “doesn’t have a single root cause” but “but poverty, culture, environment and lack of education all play a role.” Opponent Melissa Hammond, supported by the police union, There were vague, short answers to our survey.

The 151st vote goes to Patrick Hare, a qualified Deputy DA. As a judge, his bottom line was: “Provide, where appropriate, alternatives to incarceration for those suffering from substance abuse and addiction, delete those who have demonstrated recovery, and provide significant sanctions for violent and repeat offenders. “

No, 156 votes to Carol Elswick, qualified by attorney. Rival Albert Robles was not only rated ineligible, he was also the scandal-ridden former mayor of Carson, who faced ethics investigations over campaign finance and other issues throughout his political career.

US News.

Leave a Reply