JEEC 2026 Report

Issued April 22, 2026

This is the final report of the Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee (“Committee”) of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (“LACBA”) for the June 2, 2026, primary election.           
 

SUPERIOR COURT EVALUATIONS

Having completed its investigations and deliberations, the Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee reports its final evaluations for the candidates for the following Los Angeles Superior Court offices:

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 2

 Hon. Robert Draper………………………….Not Qualified

Tal K. Valbuena…………………………………Qualified

           

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 14

 Angie Christides……………………………….Qualified

Irene Lee………………………………………….Well Qualified

                      

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 64

Francisco Amador…………....................Not Qualified

Maria Ghobadi…………………………………Well Qualified

Rhonda Haymon………………………………Qualified

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 65

Justin Clayton……………………………………Qualified

Chellei G. Jimenez…………………………….Qualified

Samuel W. Krause …………………………...Qualified

Anna S. Reitano………………………………..Qualified

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 66

Benny Forer....................................... Well Qualified

Cheryl C. Turner................................. Qualified

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 81

Dan Kapelovitz................................... Qualified

Hon. David Walgren........................... Exceptionally Well Qualified

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 87

Anthony (A.J.) Bayne…………………………Well Qualified

David DeJute…………………………………….Qualified

Sharee S. Gordon……………………………..Qualified

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 116

Hon. Patrick Connolly……………………….Well Qualified

Paul A. Thompson……………..................Qualified

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 131

Carlos Dammeier……………………………..Qualified

David Ross………………………..................Qualified

Troy W. Slaten………………………………….Qualified

Donna Tryfman………………………...........Qualified

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 176

Gloria Marin……………………………………..Well Qualified

Zachary Smith…………….........................Qualified

 

SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 181

Ryan Dibble………………………………………..Well Qualified

Thanayi Lindsey……………........................Not Qualified

 

Background

The Committee was appointed by the President of LACBA during the administrative years 2024-2025 and 2025-2026.  All members of the Committee, numbering 39 persons, participated in this election’s evaluation process. The members of the Committee represent by race, gender, and ethnicity, a cross section of the legal community, including lawyers from the private and public sectors, sole practitioners and members of small, medium and large law firms, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys, as well as members of the plaintiff and defense bars. Committee members have extensive courtroom and trial experience and a firm understanding of the qualifications necessary to be an effective judicial officer.

The Board of Trustees adopted the Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) of the Committee on May 27, 2015, and amended them on December 15, 2021. The Committee Handbook (the “Handbook”), which incorporates the Rules, is available to all those concerned and the public online on LACBA’s website, www.lacba.org.

Before commencement of the Committee’s work this year, a training session was held for new Committee members to acquaint them with the Handbook and the Rules and procedures to be used in their work on the Committee. The Committee then began its evaluation of candidates for the contested judicial offices in Los Angeles County for the June 2, 2026, election. In this election, 28 candidates seek eleven contested offices: eight offices are open seats and three offices are currently held by judicial officers. Two of the judicial officers were originally elected and one was appointed.  

The Committee was divided into three subcommittees. Subcommittee assignments were made by the Committee Chair in consultation with the three Vice Chairs responsible for the subcommittees. These assignments were designed to provide, to the extent possible, each subcommittee with members of diverse personal and professional backgrounds. Each subcommittee had approximately twelve members. The Vice Chairs organized the subcommittees and performed other functions to assist in the preparation of each subcommittee’s reports to the full Committee. As it relates to each candidate, the functions of the subcommittee, with the assistance of LACBA staff, included among other things, public database inquiries, the distribution of Confidential Questionnaires and the analysis of the completed questionnaires returned to the Committee, telephonic inquiries to references and other individuals identified by the candidates and persons not identified by candidates, including opposing counsel and judges before whom they appear, on-site monitoring of sitting bench officers in the courtroom where applicable, and subcommittee interviews with those candidates who participated in the process.[1]

Each candidate was given due and timely notice of the document submission deadline on multiple occasions using a variety of notice vehicles such as email and telephone calls.

The universe of information to consider, validate, and analyze as to each candidate is much larger for those who timely provide such documentation than for those who do not. As a result, the Committee has in the past determined to deny subcommittee interviews to those who failed to timely provide information. In this election cycle, those candidates who participated in the process provided information in a reasonably timely manner and all who participated were afforded an interview with a subcommittee via video conference. The Committee takes a candidate’s decision not to participate in the evaluation process into consideration as one of several factors impacting the candidate’s judgment, character, work ethic and temperament.

The Committee met to review subcommittee reports and to make tentative evaluations on March 26, 30, and 31, 2026.  In addition, the Committee met on April 7 and 8, 2026, to conduct interviews with those candidates who appealed their tentative evaluations, requesting re‑evaluation. A quorum was obtained for all meetings and votes of the Committee, per the Rules.

All candidates who were given a tentative evaluation of “Qualified” or “Not Qualified” and who participated in the Committee’s evaluation process, were afforded the opportunity to meet with the Committee to appeal their tentative evaluations. Eleven candidates filed such appeals and all eleven appeared before the Committee. Candidates were afforded 20 minutes to present their appeal in whatever format the candidate preferred.

Evaluation Standards

The Committee evaluated the candidates as “Exceptionally Well Qualified,” “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified.” These standards are described in the Rules as follows:

            To be “Exceptionally Well Qualified,” the candidate must possess qualities and attributes considered to be of remarkable or extraordinary superiority so that, without real doubt, the candidate is deemed fit to perform the judicial function with distinction.

To be “Well Qualified,” the candidate must possess professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament indicative of superior fitness to perform the judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.

            To be “Qualified,” the candidate must possess professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament indicative of fitness to perform the judicial function satisfactorily.

            To be “Not Qualified,” the candidate lacks one or more of the qualities of professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament indicative of fitness to perform the judicial function satisfactorily.

 

These standards necessarily contemplate a quantitative and qualitative evaluation. The standards are, therefore, very different from the eligibility provisions for Superior Court judicial officers set forth in the California Constitution, which merely require that the individual be a member of the State Bar or have served on a court for ten years.

 

Evaluation Procedure and Investigation

In discharging its responsibility, the Committee complied with its Rules as follows:

            1.         A telephonic meeting was held by the Vice Chairs and the Committee Chair to discuss assignments, procedures, and techniques. The Vice Chairs then organized their respective subcommittees. Assignments were made to avoid potential conflict situations, and for the most part to ensure that candidates for the same office were not evaluated by the same subcommittee.

            2.         A letter describing the Committee’s work was sent to each candidate along with a roster of committee members, notice of the candidate’s right to seek disqualification of any committee member based upon any perceived conflict of interest, and links and instructions to access the Personal Data Questionnaire, the Handbook and Rules. Each candidate was asked to complete and return the Personal Data Questionnaire, and to review the roster for members who might have a possible conflict of interest. The Committee Chair then dealt with any conflict claims. Candidates were also asked to supply the names and current email addresses of 75 lawyers and/or judges who could evaluate the candidate’s legal skills, knowledge, temperament, and other qualifications to be a judicial officer. Ideally, these individuals also included all counsel and judges listed in the candidate’s responses to the Personal Data Questionnaire.

One orientation meeting was held on February 17, 2026, via video conference to acquaint each candidate with the evaluation process, time frames and to answer any questions the candidates had regarding the process. A majority of the candidates attended the meeting.  Appropriate steps were taken to protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The Vice Chairs made themselves available throughout the process to answer any questions that candidates had about the evaluation process.

         3.       The subcommittees reviewed the Personal Data Questionnaires and analyzed all additional information concerning the candidates’ qualifications for judicial office. Among other things, LACBA staff and the subcommittees emailed questionnaires to each individual identified on the candidates’ reference list and, in some instances, to other persons considered to be knowledgeable about the candidate's qualifications. The questionnaires were patterned after questionnaires used by the State Bar Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation in rating persons being considered for judicial appointment by the Governor.

Upon receipt of completed questionnaires, members of the subcommittees followed up telephonically and by electronic mail with judges, lawyers, and other persons who had knowledge of the candidates. Negative reports regarding a candidate were followed up to determine the extent to which the report had any substance or reflected broadly held opinions as opposed to an isolated instance or personal reaction peculiar to the individual responding.

In their investigations, subcommittee members specifically inquired, among other things, into the following attributes of the candidates:

(1)        Integrity and character

(2)        Judgment and intellectual capacity

(3)        Fairness

(4)        Experience

(5)        Industry and diligence

(6)        Judicial temperament, including whether the candidate would be courteous and considerate of counsel, parties, witnesses and jurors, and whether the candidate is even-tempered

(7)        Professional ability and knowledge of the law

(8)        Health problems that might affect the candidate’s ability to serve as a judge

(9)        General reputation in the community

(10)      Civic and community activities

(11)      Candor in preparing the Personal Data Questionnaire and list of references, and responding to inquiries by Committee members

(12)      Other relevant matters of concern including any issues relating to potential bias

            4.         Committee members supplemented the investigations of the subcommittees by providing information to the Committee so as to take advantage of the broad base of knowledge, background, and experience of the entire Committee.

            5.         The candidates who participated in the process were personally interviewed by the subcommittees assigned to them. Any negative information was provided to the candidates in writing sufficiently in advance of their interview with the subcommittee so the candidate could address and be prepared for questioning about negative information, per the Rules and Handbook.

            6.         After the subcommittees completed their investigations and interviewed the candidates, the subcommittees reported to the Committee and recommended tentative ratings. During the meetings of the full Committee, the subcommittees’ reports and recommendations were fully discussed, and a tentative evaluation of each candidate was made by the full Committee. In accordance with the Rules, a vote of over 50 percent of the Committee quorum present is required for a rating of “Qualified,” over 60 percent for a rating of “Well Qualified,” and over 75 percent is required for the rating of “Exceptionally Well Qualified.”

7.         Each candidate receiving a tentative evaluation of “Not Qualified” and “Qualified” and who participated in the Committee’s evaluation process, was advised in writing of the basis for the tentative evaluation and advised of their right to appear individually before the full Committee to discuss the evaluation. Prior to the appearance of any candidate appealing his or her evaluation, the Committee reviewed the reasons for the tentative evaluation. When the candidates appeared, they were each given the opportunity to address the reasons given for the tentative evaluation, to present relevant facts, letters from third persons and/or other documents, and to answer questions from the Committee members.

8.         Following each candidate’s discussion with the Committee, the Committee reviewed and discussed the information received, including any information or comments made during the appeal hearing, reviewed the tentative evaluation, and reached a final evaluation. Final evaluations were then sent to each candidate.

Confidentiality

In accordance with the Rules, all investigations and proceedings of the Committee and its subcommittees were and are treated as confidential. The need for confidentiality was emphasized from the beginning of the Committee’s work, with each member and staff person signing an agreement by which the member agreed to be bound by the Rules. Those Rules mandate that the Committee members are, among other things, not to disclose to any person, information regarding the work of the Committee, except as set forth in the Handbook and the Rules.

Evaluations

The Committee emphasizes that its evaluations do not reflect upon and are not an evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications as a practicing attorney, or in any other endeavor.

Evaluation of Not Qualified Candidates

The Committee rated the following three (3) candidates as “Not Qualified”: Frank Amador, Hon. Robert Draper, and Thanayi Lindsey. That evaluation reflects the Committee’s opinion that these candidates do not adequately possess one or more of the following attributes necessary to perform the judicial function satisfactorily:

• Integrity and character
• Judgment and intellectual capacity
• Fairness
• Sufficient recent and relevant legal experience
• Industry and diligence
• Judicial temperament, including whether the candidate would be courteous and considerate of counsel, parties, witnesses and jurors, and whether the candidate is even-tempered
• Professional ability and knowledge of the law
• Absence of health problems that affect the ability to serve as a judge
• Positive professional reputation in the community.

Conclusion

The 2026 Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association respectfully submits this report with the consideration in mind that it will be a source of information for the voters of Los Angeles County and will assist them in selecting qualified and able judicial officers in the forthcoming election. The report collectively represents innumerable hours of work by the Committee over nearly three months. This enormous time investment was made to ensure a quality evaluation and represents a sincere commitment by the Committee to the administration of justice.

The Committee with the assistance of LACBA staff will embark on a multiple facet public information campaign to publicize the judicial elections and the JEEC’s candidate evaluations prior to the June 2, 2026, primary election and again prior to the November 2026 General Elections for those candidates in a run-off election.

Date Issued: April 22, 2026
 

Officers of the Committee:

Susan Schwartz, Chair

Christa M. Hohmann, Vice Chair

Jonathan A. Loeb, Vice Chair

Christopher C. Melcher, Vice Chair

 

Members of the Committee:

Zaruhi Abgaryan

Andrew Adams

Louis Avila

Stephanie Bedi

Magdalena Casas

Robin Chand

Belle Chen

Dana Cohn

Sarah Conway

Karla Crone

Presciliano Duran

Sara Edwards

Bianca Falcon

Clinton Ford

Chinelo Ikem

Kandice Jung

Matthew Kanin

Shadi Kardan

Jason Kelly

Michael Kenny

Lydia Liberio

Duane Lyons

Randall Miller

Uri Niv

Sara Shahbazi

Amir Shakoorian Tabrizi

Brad Siegel

David Sire, Jr.

Lorin Snyder

Jodi Taksar

Samira Torshizi

Jonathan Turner

Aparna Voleti

Erika Williams

Alexandra Zuiderweg

 

 

---