Los Angeles County voters have their pick of four candidates to fill the open judgeship in Superior Court Office No. 131.
Two are administrative law judges who have run multiple times in recent years to be a Superior Court judge. Two are public defenders, one in the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office and the other in the Office of the Alternate Public Defender. All four were assessed “Qualified” by the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
At the outset, this editorial board was skeptical of the first two candidates. More on them at the end.
There are indeed two candidates worth seriously considering voting for in this race.
David Ross, considered
There’s David Ross, who, after a decade as a newsman became a public defender. After initially working in Riverside County, he came to Los Angeles County, where he’s worked for over two decades as an alternate public defender. Contrary to what that sounds like to the uninitiated, he is not by any means a lesser public defender, and he does the same work as someone without “alternate” in the name.
As a candidate, he laments “activist judges,” citing the current U.S. Supreme Court as an example. “Current judicial heroes would be the three minority justices on the Supreme Court — Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson,” he wrote in our endorsement survey. “Not because they are Democrats, but because they are intellectually honest in their opinions, even when those rulings disappoint some people.”
While a piece in the law-oriented Metropolitan News-Enterprise quoted a judge as saying Ross was someone who would “come off a bit arrogant,” that didn’t appear to be the case in our interview with him. Ross indeed seems level-headed and restrained in what he has to say, mindful of not publicly expressing too many of his own opinions.
His seeming level-headedness contrasts with his touting of support from the far-left “abolitionist” La Defensa, which describes its approach to the world as: “We believe in a broad anti-racist, intersectional-feminist, and anti-capitalist movement led by the people most impacted by criminalization, economic injustice, and other forms of state violence and control.”
Activist judges are indeed a problem. As are judges who take far-left activists seriously.
That said, there’s little doubting Ross’ competence or professionalism. It is fully possible that as a judge he could separate what he had to do as a campaigner from his work on the bench.
The case for Donna Tryfman
Which brings us to public defender Donna Tryfman. The daughter of Holocaust survivors, Tryfman has served Los Angeles County for three decades, dedicated to ensuring the people are fairly represented and that the government does its job correctly. Her blunt, confident manner of speaking undoubtedly inspires trust among her clients, but we can also see how it occasionally bristles her opponents.
Tryfman no doubt has the experience to be a judge. Currently serving in the Major Cases Unit and used to handling complicated cases, she has also held various roles and experiences in the justice system. This includes serving as a supervisor at the Eastlake Juvenile Court for three years, as a judge pro tem over small claims and traffic cases, and on the Mediation Volunteer Panel of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
In approaching the job, Tryfman has a refreshingly clearheaded view of the role. “A judge, like everyone, is a human being. Many times I’ve told jurors not to leave their common sense at the door, and it’s the same for judges. I bring my experience as a public defender with me, but I am very clear about the distinction between advocacy and neutrality. I’ve spent my career analyzing and challenging evidence and ensuring that there is due process. As an advocate, I’m there to ensure the government ‘does it right.’ That experience translates well to being a judge because my interest lay in the fairness and consistency of the process.”
Across interviews, we found her to be thoughtful, sharp and totally reasonable.
Which made it all the more surprising that there’s actually been some harsh criticism of her out there, much of which are unsubstantiated claims circulated by a far-left congressional candidate, among others. We’re not going to repeat the most ridiculous of them, but many of the complaints about Tryfman date back to her advocacy as a parent in the Beverly Hills Unified School District. She unsuccessfully ran for school board in 2020 on a “kids’ interests come first” platform, but was certainly successful as a local watchdog on the handling of district bond funds and construction projects. Naturally, she upset some people in the process.
Regarding this latter point, school board president Judith Manouchehri praised Tryfman’s efforts: “We are lucky to have course corrected on the modernization of our various school facilities and the tens of millions of taxpayer bond dollars at issue. And we moved in the right direction thanks to the voice of Donna Tryfman and other community members who were brave enough to identify and call out the problem.”
Which brings us back to Tryfman’s own ability to compartmentalize her own views from what one expects from a judge.
“Personal politics should not drive judicial decisions,” she explained. “I’m accustomed to making decisions in high stakes situations. As a judge, I will honor the legal standard and make every decision fairly, transparently, and consistently. My judicial mentor, Judge David Wesley, is actually the creative force behind the Teen Court program in Los Angeles. He was a judge for many years in the juvenile courts and he saw a need to introduce civic duties, and to include teens in the trial process. His temperament was always even-handed and fair and he utilized his position in juvenile court to fill a gap and create an enduring program.”
Regarding Dammeier and Slaten
Dieter Carlos Dammeier, on the ballot as Carlos Dammeier, has run at least twice for Superior Court judge in San Bernardino County since 2016, losing both times. In 2024, when he was also on the ballot in San Bernardino County, he was also defeated in Merced County, where he also sought to be a judge.
In 2013, the San Bernardino Sun reported this about his former law firm: “An Upland law firm accused of double and triple-billing police union clients across Southern California and bullying two Costa Mesa councilmen now stands accused of planting a GPS tracking device on one of those councilmen’s cars.”
Dammeier denies wrongdoing. But voters have wisely rejected his campaigns across time and across jurisdictions.
Which then brings us to Troy Slaten, a former child actor who ran for judge in 2020 and 2022. Slaten previously got into hot water for numerous television appearances over the years in which he was presented as a “former prosecutor,” drawing criticism for stretching his resume.
In response to this editorial board’s endorsement survey he depicted his experience this way, “As a senior certified law clerk, I prosecuted felony preliminary hearings and they even entrusted me to try some misdemeanor jury trials.” While written within the appropriate bounds, the past misrepresentations are hard to fully shake.
That might be overcome in light of his ongoing work, his “Qualified” rating by the Bar and in the absence of credible alternatives.
Endorsement
We endorse Donna Tryfman. While we think Ross and Tryfman are both solid candidates and are impressed both have the endorsement of former District Attorney Steve Cooley, we are dissuaded from backing Ross due to his touting of support from the far-left groups. That reflects on his judgment. We also think, on the merits, that Tryfman has earned the position of judge due to her experience, the work she has done and her particularly thoughtful approach to the justice system.