Los Angeles County Superior Court Office 87: Anthony (A.J.) Bayne vs. David DeJute

Recommendation: Anthony (A.J.) Bayne — moderate confidence. Bayne has the stronger comparative qualification record in the evidence available to voters: the Los Angeles County Bar Association rated him “Well Qualified,” one level above David DeJute’s “Qualified,” and he has spent most of a 31-year legal career in Los Angeles criminal trial practice, including more than 100 reported jury trials and a period supervising trial deputies. DeJute offers a serious alternative: federal civil trial work, complex litigation, in-house leadership, legal teaching, and disaster-relief legal services. The rating’s confidential candidate-specific rationale and the lack of comparable performance data keep this recommendation moderate rather than high confidence.

This analysis is part of the Los Angeles County Voter Guide 2026 and is researched under the sherafy.com Civic Outcomes Standard.

What the choice actually is

Los Angeles County voters will choose one candidate for nonpartisan Superior Court Office 87 in the November 3, 2026 general election. The Registrar-Recorder’s November ballot-marking-device code list confirms Bayne and DeJute as the two candidates on the current ballot. In the certified June 2 primary, Anthony (A.J.) Bayne received 694,004 votes (42.04%), David DeJute 516,631 (31.30%), and Sharee Sanders Gordon 440,136 (26.66%). No candidate won a majority, so the top two advanced. The Registrar-Recorder’s official results report those totals; the County’s qualified-candidate filing report identifies Bayne as a County deputy public defender and DeJute as a law professor/attorney. The October 2026 LAist voter guide independently confirms the November runoff and current candidate descriptions.

This is not a policy office. Neither candidate can promise to favor defendants, prosecutors, law enforcement, victims, or a preferred legal outcome. The relevant choice is which record provides stronger evidence of legal ability, courtroom judgment, integrity, temperament, independence, and readiness to decide cases fairly under law.

What this office can actually control

California Superior Courts are trial courts of general jurisdiction. They hear criminal and civil cases, including family, juvenile, probate, mental-health, and traffic matters. A judge rules on legal issues, manages proceedings, assesses evidence, conducts bench trials, instructs juries, and issues orders. The California Courts’ overview describes the role as applying law to facts presented by witnesses and other evidence. A countywide voter elects a judge, not a permanent specialty: assignments are made within the court and may change over time.

Superior Court judges serve six-year terms, and candidates must have been members of the California Bar or judges in California for at least ten years immediately before election or appointment. Both candidates clear that threshold. State Bar records show DeJute was admitted in June 1991 and Bayne in December 1994; both profiles currently show active licenses and no disciplinary entry in the displayed history table. The Bar cautions that some administrative suspensions may be removed automatically, and the public profile is not a record of confidential complaints. This is a bounded public-record check, not proof that no matter was ever filed. (DeJute’s State Bar profile; Bayne’s State Bar profile; California judicial-selection overview.)

The California Code of Judicial Ethics requires judges to uphold judicial independence and perform duties impartially, competently, and diligently. That standard governs whichever candidate wins. A candidate can describe fair process or administrative priorities but cannot responsibly commit to a particular result in cases that may come before the court.

The baseline and what happens under each alternative

This is a contested election for an open seat, not a vote to retain an incumbent. The seat became vacant after Judge Holly J. Fujie retired in March 2026. Either candidate would join the same county trial court, apply the same statutes and procedural rules, and be subject to the same ethical duties, appeal process, and judicial-discipline system. Neither candidate has a record as a sitting judge, so voters cannot compare authored rulings, sentencing decisions, recusal practices, or case-management results. (American Law Institute profile of Judge Fujie.)

The practical difference is professional formation. Bayne’s work is concentrated in public defense and criminal trial courts. DeJute’s career spans federal civil litigation, corporate litigation management, private complex litigation, and law teaching. Each background could support judicial work; they do not create a simple prosecution-versus-defense comparison. Superior Court judges may receive assignments outside the candidate’s prior specialty.

Bayne’s campaign also emphasizes technology and artificial intelligence to improve court processes. His proposals matter to administration, but this election does not give one judge authority to procure or impose a countywide system. His own public discussion describes both legal-workflow tools and a proposed “non-directive” judicial-support tool that would not recommend or predict outcomes. The potential benefit is administrative efficiency and better access to information; the countervailing requirements are human responsibility, accuracy, privacy, security, transparency, equal access, and meaningful review. The public record does not establish that any such tool has been adopted by the court or independently tested for judicial use.

What the evidence shows

A direct comparison of courtroom work

Bayne has been a California lawyer since 1994 and a Los Angeles County deputy public defender for more than 25 years. The Los Angeles Times reports that his 31-year career includes more than 100 jury trials to verdict, among them murder, special-circumstance, and three-strikes cases. It reports that he spent about 19 years at the Compton courthouse, at one point serving as deputy in charge and supervising misdemeanor trial deputies, and now handles serious felonies in Torrance. The reported count is substantial experience in trial procedure, evidence, courtroom management, and the consequences of detention and adjudication. It is not an independently audited count or a measure of outcomes, fairness, or judicial performance. (Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2026; Bayne’s campaign site.)

DeJute’s State Bar admission date establishes more than 35 years in the profession. His firm reports that he spent more than a decade as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division, trying constitutional, regulatory, and commercial cases; later he oversaw litigation as a Sony Pictures vice president; he is now an attorney in a complex-litigation practice and teaches at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law. The Times reports he worked on 10 trials during more than a decade as a federal prosecutor, including cases defending federal agencies and President Barack Obama against eligibility lawsuits. A published Ninth Circuit opinion in Drake v. Obama lists DeJute as counsel for the federal defendants and affirms dismissal on procedural grounds, including lack of standing; it did not decide the eligibility claim on its merits. This verifies a significant part of his federal practice without treating the case’s political subject as evidence of judicial outlook. DeJute’s practice therefore offers government-side litigation, complex legal questions, corporate oversight, teaching, and a different range of civil matters. A smaller number of reported trials does not establish lesser ability: federal civil trials can be complex, and the sources do not provide a common measure of case difficulty or responsibility. (Michelman & Robinson profile; Los Angeles Times; Ninth Circuit opinion in Drake v. Obama; DeJute’s campaign biography.)

The distinction that matters is not simply trial volume. Bayne’s recent and sustained county criminal-court practice supplies unusually direct preparation for a large local trial calendar and the management of adversarial hearings. DeJute’s broader civil and federal practice supplies relevant legal analysis and a perspective on complex disputes that a Superior Court judge may also handle. DeJute has taught legal ethics and other subjects and led students providing disaster-relief legal assistance; that adds communication and service experience, but neither teaching nor law-firm leadership is a substitute for a judicial record.

What the L.A. County Bar rating contributes

The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s 2026 Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee rated Bayne Well Qualified and DeJute Qualified. LACBA describes its evaluation as assessing professional ability, experience, competence, integrity, and temperament. Its ratings are not a government license or a prediction of how a candidate will rule. They are particularly relevant here because neither candidate has an incumbent record for voters to examine. (LACBA’s 2026 ratings announcement; LAist’s 2026 candidate guide.)

The evaluation is meaningful but not decisive. LACBA’s candidate-specific interviews and underlying findings are confidential, so the public cannot identify which criteria or evidence account for the difference in ratings. LAist’s prior description of the committee process says its evaluators review questionnaires and contact people familiar with candidates, seeking specific information about skill, experience, and temperament. That provides some process transparency but does not let voters independently test the 2026 conclusions. The rating therefore deserves weight as a structured professional assessment while remaining less verifiable than an open record of judicial performance.

Legal conduct, independence, and public record

The State Bar profiles show both candidates active, with no discipline listed in the history table reviewed. No public judicial discipline record is applicable because neither is a sitting judge. No substantiated professional-conduct finding, pattern of sanctions, or candidate-specific reversal pattern was identified in the records reviewed. That is a search boundary, not a claim that no criticism, complaint, or confidential issue exists.

DeJute’s federal government work included representing President Obama in so-called “birther” litigation. The existence or political salience of those cases is not evidence for or against his judicial qualifications; the appropriate questions are the quality of his legal work and his ability to apply law impartially. His own campaign describes the work as defending Obama, while his firm’s account places it among federal civil matters. We found no basis to treat the client or subject matter as evidence of partisan bias.

Bayne’s campaign describes him as an inventor of AI-supported legal workflow tools. The Times reports two patent-pending applications, one related to closing arguments and another to generating cross-examination questions from transcripts. In a June 2026 podcast interview, Bayne described a separate judicial-support concept as non-directive and said it would not generate recommendations, predictions, or advice. That distinction is important: the public record supports that he is interested in automation and has discussed judicial-support technology; it does not show he plans to delegate decisions to AI or that his tools are accurate, secure, unbiased, or ready for court use. Any deployment would require institutional authority, public standards, privacy safeguards, testing, accessible alternatives, and human accountability. (Los Angeles Times; Court ODR podcast transcript.)

Endorsements and their limits

Both campaigns publish broad endorsement lists. Bayne’s campaign highlights judicial officers, public-safety organizations, labor, and community supporters; DeJute’s campaign lists Democratic Party and community and legal endorsements. These may show who is willing to vouch for a candidate, but endorsements are advocacy, not independent assessments of impartiality or case outcomes. The more probative evidence is the combination of candidate experience and the structured LACBA rating; even that combination does not remove the central uncertainty about how either would perform as a judge.

Fiscal effects, distribution and opportunity cost

Neither candidate can unilaterally set the Superior Court’s budget, staffing, or countywide technology policy. A judge can affect court resources through scheduling, hearings, and case administration, but any claimed savings from faster case processing would depend on courtwide staffing, technology, caseload, rules, and implementation. Neither campaign supplies a costed, independently evaluated plan that permits a fiscal comparison.

Campaign finance is relevant to transparency and potential conflicts, not proof of judicial conduct. The campaigns identify their committees as DeJute for Judge 2026 (FPPC ID 1482039) and Elect Bayne for Judge 2026 (FPPC ID 1488166). The County’s campaign-disclosure page describes a transition among its archive and NetFile systems and provides public access to filed reports. We did not complete an independent reconciliation of each committee’s Form 460, late Form 497 contributions, Form 496 independent expenditures, nonmonetary contributions, and current cash/debt through the final pre-election period. Consequently, this article makes no comparative claim about total support or donor influence. A pre-publication refresh should check the official filings and any relevant recusal disclosures.

Applying the ten Civic Outcomes lenses

1. Human welfare. Trial-court decisions can affect liberty, safety, family relationships, finances, and access to timely resolution. Bayne’s sustained criminal-court work bears directly on those consequences; DeJute’s federal and complex litigation addresses a different but relevant set of rights and disputes. Neither has judge-specific outcome evidence.

2. Distribution and inequality. Bayne’s public-defense work has brought him into direct contact with indigent clients, pretrial detention, and unequal legal resources. DeJute’s disaster-relief clinic and pro bono teaching work involve service to people facing recovery barriers. These experiences are relevant but do not establish comparative results for future litigants.

3. Civil liberties and equal treatment. A judge must protect due process and apply rules consistently to parties with unequal power. Bayne’s defense career can help him recognize the practical stakes of state power; DeJute’s federal civil work and teaching in legal ethics are relevant to disciplined legal analysis. Professional formation does not determine future rulings, and candidates cannot promise case outcomes.

4. Economic and material effects. Criminal judgments can affect employment, housing, immigration, and family stability; civil and family decisions can directly affect property and livelihood. Neither candidate controls the economic policy that shapes those consequences. Timely, accurate adjudication matters, but no candidate-specific savings estimate is available.

5. Fiscal reality and opportunity cost. The winner will work inside an existing court budget and management system. Technology may reduce repetitive work or improve access, but savings and error rates depend on system design, validation, training, procurement, security, and oversight. The record provides no defensible quantified forecast for either candidate’s ideas.

6. Institutional integrity and democratic accountability. The nonpartisan election gives county voters a direct choice, while judicial ethics, appellate review, recusal, and the Commission on Judicial Performance constrain judicial power. The LACBA rating offers a useful additional signal but is a private association’s assessment with confidential candidate-specific reasoning.

7. Evidence of effectiveness. Bayne’s trial count and DeJute’s federal case experience establish practice exposure, not judicial effectiveness. The LACBA rating is the strongest comparative professional assessment found, but its methods and confidential findings are not an independently validated performance measure.

8. Implementation and administrative capacity. Bayne’s reported supervisory experience and court-system familiarity are relevant to managing criminal calendars; DeJute’s corporate litigation oversight, teaching, and complex-case work may help with organized legal analysis and communication. Neither has served as a judge, so the record cannot establish judicial management performance.

9. Unintended consequences and behavioral response. A judge’s use of AI tools could improve workflow or magnify errors, privacy risks, access disparities, or opaque decision support. Bayne describes his judicial tool as non-directive, but that is a design claim, not an external validation. Use in adjudication would need institutional review and safeguards rather than a candidate’s assurance alone.

10. Reversibility, resilience and future lock-in. A judge serves a six-year term; appellate review and judicial discipline can address some errors, but cannot fully reverse lost liberty, time, or family stability. Court technology decisions may outlast a single judge and should be made under transparent institutional controls. Neither election changes the court’s underlying structure.

The strongest case for and against each candidate

The strongest case for Anthony (A.J.) Bayne

Bayne combines more than three decades in law, over 25 years in the County public defender’s office, more than 100 reported jury trials, serious felony practice, and prior supervisory work in a trial courthouse. That provides direct familiarity with the people, procedures, and operational pressures of Los Angeles criminal courts. LACBA’s “Well Qualified” rating is an additional structured assessment of the qualities that trial counts alone cannot measure. His interest in court technology could also be an asset if it remains evidence-based, transparent, and subject to institutional safeguards.

The strongest case against Anthony (A.J.) Bayne

The campaign-reported trial count is not an audited measure of quality, and most of Bayne’s practice has been criminal defense, while the Superior Court hears a broad range of cases. The public cannot inspect the confidential basis for his higher LACBA rating. His technology proposals have not been independently evaluated in a judicial setting, and efficiency claims should not be treated as established benefits. Those limits matter, but the available evidence does not show that he intends to use AI to make or recommend judicial decisions.

The strongest case for David DeJute

DeJute has a substantial and varied legal career: federal civil trial work on constitutional, regulatory, and commercial questions; senior litigation management at a major entertainment company; complex litigation practice; legal teaching; and disaster-relief legal assistance. The breadth is relevant to a court where judges may be assigned civil and noncriminal matters. His experience clerking for a federal judge and teaching legal ethics may inform careful legal reasoning and respect for judicial independence. A voter could reasonably favor this breadth over Bayne’s more concentrated criminal trial background.

The strongest case against David DeJute

The publicly reported courtroom record is less directly extensive in local state trial-court practice: the Times reports 10 trials in over a decade as a federal civil litigator, compared with Bayne’s more than 100 jury trials in local criminal courts. Those numbers are not fully comparable, and DeJute’s matters may have been complex, but the gap is relevant to readiness for a high-volume trial bench. LACBA rated him “Qualified,” below Bayne’s “Well Qualified.” Because the evaluation rationale is private, voters cannot tell whether this difference reflects courtroom experience, temperament, another factor, or a combination.

Campaign claims audit

Funding and interested parties

Both candidates’ campaigns disclose their committees and promote different coalitions of endorsers. Bayne’s campaign identifies judicial, labor, and public-safety supporters; DeJute’s identifies political-party, community, and legal supporters. Endorsements are relevant to who supports a campaign but do not show that a candidate would favor any supporter in court. The public campaign-finance record has not been reconciled for this review, and no finding of improper influence or a candidate-specific financial conflict is made. Before publication, review the complete late-cycle filings and assess any reported connection only under applicable contribution, recusal, and judicial-ethics rules.

What remains unknown

• LACBA’s confidential candidate-specific findings and the evidence that produced the different ratings.
• A common, independently verified accounting of both candidates’ trial, hearing, and supervisory experience, including case complexity and results.
• How either candidate would manage a courtroom as a neutral decision-maker; neither has a judicial record available for comparison.
• Bayne’s AI tools’ full technical design, patent status, test results, data protections, bias evaluation, and any court adoption. The campaign and interview descriptions do not resolve these questions.
• Complete campaign receipts, debts, in-kind support, late contributions, and independent spending through the election period.
• Comparable evidence of both candidates’ readiness for family, juvenile, probate, civil, and other assignments outside their primary practice areas.

These gaps materially limit confidence but do not make the choice genuinely indeterminate. Bayne’s current professional rating and sustained local courtroom experience provide a defensible comparative advantage; DeJute’s broader legal background remains a substantial countercase.

What would change this analysis?

A credible public explanation showing that the LACBA rating relied on inaccurate information, an unfair process, or a factor unrelated to judicial qualifications would reduce its weight. Evidence of a recurring ethical, competence, temperament, or professional-conduct problem for either candidate would carry more weight than campaign endorsements or a single contentious case. A detailed and independently verifiable record showing DeJute’s courtroom responsibility and performance more comparable to Bayne’s, or credible evidence of stronger judicial-readiness skills, could shift the recommendation.

For Bayne’s technology proposals, independent validation showing privacy-preserving design, measurable administrative gains, accessible use, low error risk, and clear human accountability would strengthen the innovation case. Evidence that a system influenced adjudicative outcomes without adequate transparency or meaningful human review would weaken it. A full campaign-finance reconciliation could change the analysis only if it revealed a material conflict or improper influence, not merely because one campaign raised more or received support from a particular lawful source.

sherafy.com recommendation: Anthony (A.J.) Bayne — moderate confidence

The evidence modestly favors Bayne. Both candidates are experienced lawyers in good standing on the public State Bar records reviewed, and DeJute’s federal litigation, corporate leadership, complex civil practice, and teaching make him a credible judicial candidate. This is not a judgment that criminal-defense experience is inherently superior to civil or federal practice, or that DeJute lacks the competence to serve.

The comparative case rests on two evidence streams that point in the same direction: Bayne’s reported decades of day-to-day Los Angeles trial-court work, including serious felony jury trials and a supervisory role, and LACBA’s “Well Qualified” rating compared with DeJute’s “Qualified” rating. The trial count shows exposure, not quality; the bar assessment is private and not a prediction. Together, however, they provide more direct and structured evidence of readiness for the local trial bench than the public record supplies for DeJute.

DeJute’s strongest counterargument is the breadth and complexity of his legal work. His federal civil litigation and corporate oversight could be especially valuable in civil assignments, and his teaching and disaster-relief service are meaningful professional strengths. The public record does not establish that these strengths outweigh Bayne’s more extensive local trial practice and higher current professional rating. A different voter could reasonably place more weight on breadth, but under a role-specific standard focused on demonstrated courtroom readiness and peer-assessed judicial qualities, Bayne has the edge.

This recommendation does not endorse untested AI in adjudication. Bayne’s interest in court technology may support administrative innovation, but any actual judicial use requires courtwide authority, independent testing, privacy and security safeguards, equal access, transparency, and a human decision-maker accountable for the result. Because neither candidate has a judicial record and the bar-rating rationale is confidential, the conclusion is moderate confidence, not high. Evidence that materially changes either qualification signal could change the recommendation.

Evidence Ledger

References and Further Reading

• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: certified June 2, 2026 results. Primary source for Office 87 vote totals and advance-to-runoff status.
• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: November 3, 2026 Ballot Marking Device Code List. Current official confirmation that Bayne and DeJute appear on the November Office 87 ballot.
• American Law Institute: Judge Holly J. Fujie. Notes her retirement from the Superior Court in March 2026; used to establish the vacancy baseline, not to evaluate the candidates.
• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: qualified candidates report. Official candidate names and ballot designations for the primary.
• California Courts: Superior Courts. Official description of trial-court role and jurisdiction.
• California Courts: Judicial Selection. Official overview of terms, eligibility, and selection.
• California Code of Judicial Ethics. Controlling ethical framework for independence, impartiality, competence, and diligence.
• State Bar profile: David Anthony DeJute. Current status, admission date, and displayed discipline/administrative table; profile limits apply.
• State Bar profile: Anthony Jeremiah Bayne. Current status, admission date, and displayed discipline/administrative table; profile limits apply.
• Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2026: L.A. County Superior Court judge voter guide. Candidate interviews, experience details, and both 2026 ratings; counts are reported, not an audit.
• LAist, October 2026: L.A. County Superior Court candidates. Confirms runoff roster and published ratings.
• LACBA Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee: 2026 ratings announcement. Reproduced announcement with the candidate ratings and stated evaluation dimensions; the underlying candidate-specific reports remain confidential.
• LAist, 2024: How LACBA rates judicial candidates. Background on prior committee procedures; it is not a direct audit of the 2026 evaluation.
• Michelman & Robinson: David DeJute. Employer biography for federal civil practice, complex litigation, Sony Pictures work, and teaching; treat career claims as employer-reported.
• Ninth Circuit, Drake v. Obama, No. 09-56827 (2011). Official appellate opinion listing DeJute as counsel for federal defendants and affirming dismissal on procedural grounds; it is not a review of his advocacy quality or a decision on the underlying eligibility claim.
• DeJute for Judge: candidate biography. Candidate account of experience and campaign positions; advocacy source.
• Elect A.J. Bayne for Judge. Candidate account of experience, endorsements, and campaign themes; advocacy source.
• Court ODR podcast: Bayne interview and transcript, June 2026. First-person discussion of legal workflow and judicial-support concepts; not independent technical validation.
• Los Angeles County campaign-disclosure information. Official entry point for archive and NetFile campaign filings; this review did not complete a full reconciliation.

Editorial currency and research limits

Research currency: October 11, 2026. Primary election results, State Bar profiles, candidate biographies, published LACBA ratings, and current general-election guides were checked on this date. A final release review should refresh the November ballot, late campaign-finance filings and independent expenditures, State Bar status, and any newly public candidate-specific professional records. The article and this research do not constitute legal advice or independent technical review of AI systems.

Return to the Los Angeles County Voter Guide 2026.