Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Tal Khan Valbuena
Current job title: Deputy District Attorney
Age: 44
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: Commissioner, Los Angeles County LGBTQ+ Commission
City where you reside: Long Beach
Campaign website or social media: talforjudge.com
What do you consider to be your judicial philosophy? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
My philosophy is simple: Treat every person the way I want to be treated. That means treating every person with dignity, listening carefully, applying the law fairly and ensuring people leave the courtroom understanding what was decided and why. That is how trust in the courts is built.
How do you think your personal experience — legal or otherwise — would inform your decisions as a judge? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
My perspective as a judge is shaped by both lived experience and a broad legal career. I came to this country alone and built my life from the ground up, which gave me a deep respect for the rule of law and an understanding of the barriers many face when navigating our system.
Over the past 15 years, I have tried more than 130 cases and worked extensively in juvenile and mental health courts. I have seen how trauma, poverty and lack of access to services intersect with the justice system, reinforcing my belief that accountability and compassion must coexist.
I have also seen how bias can affect outcomes. As a gay Muslim American and person of color, I understand the impact of discrimination and the importance of ensuring every person is treated with fairness and dignity.
As a judge, I would apply the law faithfully while remaining mindful of the real-world consequences of my decisions, striving to deliver justice that is fair, impartial and humane.
How would you approach situations where you have judicial discretion within the law? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
When exercising judicial discretion, I would ground every decision in the law, ensuring it aligns with statutory authority and controlling precedent. I would consider the totality of the circumstances, including the facts, credibility of the parties and any mitigating or aggravating factors. My experience in juvenile and mental health courts has shown me that context matters and that fair outcomes require careful, individualized consideration.
I would also prioritize consistency, treating similarly situated individuals alike while allowing for appropriate distinctions where the law permits. Clear, transparent reasoning on the record is essential to maintaining public trust. Ultimately, I would use discretion to promote fairness, accountability and respect for the law.
How would you weigh your own personal beliefs against the law, should they conflict? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
If my personal beliefs ever conflicted with the law, I would set them aside and follow the law. A judge’s duty is to uphold the Constitution, statutes and binding precedent — not personal views.
My role is to be a neutral arbiter, applying the law as written to ensure fairness, consistency and public trust. Where interpretation is required, I would rely on legal principles, precedent and the facts — not personal ideology.
If I could not remain impartial, I would recuse myself.
My commitment is to the rule of law and delivering decisions with integrity and fairness.
As an existing member of the legal community, how would you handle potential claims of misconduct against local attorneys, law firms or law enforcement organizations? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Allegations of misconduct must be handled with fairness, impartiality and strict adherence to due process. As a judge, I would ensure that all claims are evaluated based on the evidence and the law, without bias or favoritism.
I would hold all parties to the same professional and ethical standards required by law. Where misconduct is substantiated, I would take appropriate action within my authority and, when necessary, refer matters to the appropriate disciplinary bodies.
At the same time, I would ensure that those accused are afforded full procedural protections and a fair opportunity to be heard.
Maintaining integrity and accountability in the legal system is essential to public trust, and I would approach these matters with seriousness, transparency, and a commitment to justice.
What is your philosophy on judicial activism and a judge’s potential role in shaping or setting public policy? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Judges should not act as policymakers. Their role is to interpret and apply the law as written, consistent with the Constitution and precedent — not to create policy based on personal views.
While judicial decisions can have broader impacts, those should result from faithful legal analysis, not an intent to shape policy. Setting public policy is the role of the legislative branch.
My approach is one of judicial restraint, which requires respecting the separation of powers while ensuring the law is applied fairly and constitutionally.