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

New to voting for judges? Judicial elections can feel confusing because there are two different questions to consider: what the evidence says about each candidate’s qualifications, and what experience that person would bring to the wider court. Those are not the same thing, and a candidate’s previous job does not predict every ruling. Our plain-language guide to evaluating judicial candidates explains the distinction before you read this race-specific analysis.

Editorial Update — October 14, 2026: Following a reader challenge, we added the official record of an open FPPC campaign-filing investigation involving Bayne and clarified the filing dates shown in CAL-ACCESS. An open investigation is not a finding of a violation. We also clarified that filing compliance matters to diligence and accountability, separately from donor influence. The recommendation remains Anthony (A.J.) Bayne, with moderate confidence; that describes confidence in our judgment, not his political ideology. The October 12 discussion of endorsements, judicial AI and the limits of professional ratings is retained.

Editorial Update — October 12, 2026: Following an additional review of candidate records, professional evaluations, interviews, and general-election voter guides, this article has been updated to clarify Bayne’s statements about judicial AI tools, document a change in La Defensa’s position and the competing endorsement assessments, and explain the evidentiary overlap between trial experience and the bar-association rating. The campaign-finance and research-limit language has also been clarified. The recommendation remains Anthony (A.J.) Bayne, with moderate confidence.

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, the potential overlap between the rating and Bayne’s courtroom experience, and the lack of comparable performance data keep this recommendation moderate rather than high confidence.

The open campaign-filing investigation described below is a material accountability concern and an additional limit on this recommendation. The current record establishes an investigation and filing dates, not a final enforcement finding; it does not presently outweigh Bayne’s comparative qualification evidence.

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 public discussion describes both legal-workflow tools and a proposed “non-directive” judicial-support tool that would not recommend or predict outcomes. In that same interview, he responded favorably to a separate hypothetical proposal for algorithmic initial determinations subject to human review. His stated tool design and that speculative discussion should not be conflated.

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. (Court ODR interview and transcript, June 2026.)

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 civil litigator, 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. Because courtroom experience may itself have influenced the confidential evaluation, Bayne’s trial history and higher rating should not be counted as two entirely independent indicators.

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.

The same Court ODR transcript contains an additional exchange: the interviewer speculated about an algorithm providing an initial, potentially nonbinding determination, followed by access to a human judge or jury if a party challenged it. Bayne responded positively to that possibility and acknowledged the importance of avoiding bias in how such systems are programmed. This was a hypothetical discussion, not an announcement that he would introduce AI-generated rulings or a description of what his non-directive tool actually does. The interviewer’s additional suggestion of different filing fees for algorithmic and human processes should not be attributed to Bayne as an adopted position.

That distinction is important: the record supports his interest in automation and openness to discussing broader AI applications, but it does not establish that he plans to delegate judicial 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 endorsement picture also changed after the primary. La Defensa’s primary guide listed Bayne as a recommendation rather than an endorsement. LA Forward’s October general-election guide reports that La Defensa withdrew that recommendation after DeJute’s campaign raised claims about Bayne’s past political registration and an alleged small contribution to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. La Defensa’s current general-election guide lists both Office 87 candidates without endorsing either. The underlying registration and contribution records were not independently verified in this review. Historical registration or a small lawful donation, even if substantiated, would not alone establish bias in judicial decision-making or professional unfitness.

Other advocacy assessments remain divided: Knock LA’s November voter guide favors Bayne, while Thrive LA’s general-election guide endorses DeJute. These organizations apply their own stated values and priorities; their positions are not substitutes for verified evidence of judicial readiness. The reported change in La Defensa’s recommendation is relevant campaign context, but does not itself establish misconduct or alter the LACBA ratings.

The more probative evidence is the combination of candidate experience and the structured LACBA rating, considered without double-counting possible overlap; 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, diligence, accountability and potential conflicts, although campaign support does not itself prove judicial partiality. 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 provides access to local records; the Secretary of State also displays committee filings in CAL-ACCESS.

Bayne’s campaign-filing investigation

As checked October 14, the FPPC’s official case portal lists case 2026-00514 against A.J. Bayne and his campaign committee as “Case Opened and Pending.” The case opened June 25, 2026, following a sworn complaint and is categorized as “Campaign Non-Filer.” The portal displays no disposition. This verifies an open investigation into campaign-filing compliance; the category is not a finding that a violation occurred.

The committee’s CAL-ACCESS electronic filing index lists two original Form 460 campaign statements as filed July 8, 2026: one covering January 1–April 18 and another covering April 19–May 16. The FPPC’s primary-election schedule lists April 23 and May 21 as the corresponding reporting deadlines. Those displayed dates raise a substantive timeliness concern. An August 16 entry for the May 17–June 30 statement is labeled “Amendment 2”; that amendment date does not establish when the original statement was filed.

This review did not obtain the underlying statements, any earlier paper-filing receipts, the complete filing history, the original complaint or Bayne’s response. It therefore cannot establish from the electronic index alone whether all applicable filing obligations were missed, when an electronic-filing obligation attached, or responsibility for any delay. The verified concern should neither be omitted nor described as a proven violation or concealment.

Filing compliance matters independently of corruption or donor influence: material failures can bear on diligence, transparency and respect for legal obligations. The open case adds a reservation about Bayne. LACBA’s published April 27 rating predates the June 25 case opening and should not be treated as resolving it. At present, the unresolved investigation and limited filing record do not establish a professional failing sufficient to outweigh his comparative courtroom preparation and higher published rating. Substantiated serious or repeated noncompliance could change that judgment.

We have not completed an independent reconciliation of either committee’s Form 460 statements, Form 497 contribution reports, Form 496 independent-expenditure reports, nonmonetary contributions, cash or debt. Consequently, this article makes no comparative claim about total support, donor influence or either campaign’s overall compliance. Any further review should apply the same standard to both candidates and distinguish election-cycle reports titled “Late Contribution Report” from reports actually filed after a deadline.

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. Endorsement changes are contextual signals, not findings of fitness or misconduct. The verified open FPPC filing case is a separate accountability concern; its pending status does not establish a violation.
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 confidential findings are not an independently validated performance measure. Its assessment may overlap with the experience evidence already considered.
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 external validation. His favorable response to a hypothetical AI-first process raises additional questions about real access to human review, procedural rights, transparency, and unequal costs; it does not establish a plan to implement such a process. 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, although the sources of the two positive signals may overlap.

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.

The June interview also shows more openness to hypothetical algorithm-assisted initial case determinations than a description of his non-directive tool alone would suggest. That is not a stated plan to replace judges with AI, but it makes questions about human review, legal safeguards, and accountability worth asking directly. The available evidence does not show that Bayne intends to use his proposed non-directive tool to make or recommend judicial decisions.

Bayne’s open campaign-filing investigation also deserves weight. The electronic filing dates raise a timeliness concern, but the records reviewed do not resolve the full filing history or establish an enforcement finding. Confirmed material compliance failures would weaken the case for his diligence and institutional accountability.

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 full campaign-finance record has not been reconciled for this review. The verified open FPPC filing case is discussed above; it does not establish improper influence or a candidate-specific financial conflict. Further review should assess filing compliance and accountability as well as potential conflicts 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, including any overlap with already-public career information.
• 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, nor does the interview establish an implementation plan for AI-first adjudication.
• Independent primary-record confirmation of the historical political registration and contribution claims reported by LA Forward, and a direct explanation of the recommendation withdrawal by La Defensa.
• Complete campaign receipts, debts, in-kind support, late contributions, and independent spending through the election period.
• The underlying reports, any earlier paper receipts, applicable electronic-filing history, complaint, response and eventual disposition in Bayne’s open FPPC case.
• 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, historical political affiliation, 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 definite proposal to substitute algorithmic decisions for legally required human adjudication would warrant additional scrutiny beyond the hypothetical discussion documented here.

Further campaign-finance review could change the analysis if it established material filing failures, a pattern of noncompliance, a material conflict or improper influence. The seriousness, repetition, responsibility, explanation and corrective action would matter. A pending complaint alone, a larger fundraising total or support from a lawful source does not establish professional unfitness.

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 related indicators 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 confidential and not a prediction. Because courtroom experience may have informed LACBA’s rating, these indicators must not be treated as fully independent proof. Considered with that limitation, 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. The changed endorsement landscape does not establish any adverse professional finding or a reason to substitute partisan affinity for that comparison.

This recommendation does not endorse untested AI in adjudication. Bayne’s interest in court technology may support administrative innovation, but his favorable response to a hypothetical algorithmic first-pass process warrants careful attention to due process and actual access to human review. His described non-directive tool remains a separate proposal. 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.

The verified open FPPC case adds a material accountability reservation. We retain moderate confidence because the current record establishes an unresolved investigation and concerning electronic filing dates, rather than a substantiated finding sufficient to outweigh the comparative qualification evidence. The April LACBA rating does not resolve this later concern. Evidence of serious or repeated filing failures, or other material evidence changing the qualification comparison, 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 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 account of the non-directive judicial-support concept and separate hypothetical AI-first discussion; 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.
• La Defensa: June 2026 primary voter guide. Lists Bayne as recommended, not endorsed, in the primary; advocacy assessment.
• La Defensa: November 2026 general-election voter guide. Current judicial quick guide lists both Office 87 candidates without endorsing either; an organizational position, not a professional rating.
• LA Forward: October 2026 general-election voter guide. Reports La Defensa’s withdrawal of its earlier recommendation and describes allegations raised by the DeJute campaign; underlying records not independently verified here.
• Knock LA: November 2026 general-election voter guide. Independent advocacy perspective favoring Bayne based on his public-defense and courtroom experience.
• Thrive LA: November 2026 general-election voter guide. Advocacy endorsement of DeJute emphasizing litigation breadth and courtroom efficiency.
• FPPC: Complaint and Case Information Portal. Official case search, respondent Bayne, case 2026-00514; expanded record checked October 14 for opening date, category, pending status and absence of a displayed disposition. An investigation is not a violation finding.
• Secretary of State: Bayne committee electronic filings. Index read October 14 for original Form 460 filing IDs 3166214 and 3166247 and amended filing 3166200; index access does not establish the entire filing history or contents.
• FPPC: June 2, 2026 state-candidate filing schedule. Reporting periods, April 23 and May 21 deadlines, and paper/electronic filing distinctions. The electronic index alone cannot establish every applicable obligation.

Editorial currency and research limits

Research currency: October 14, 2026 for the targeted reader-challenge review of the FPPC case portal, CAL-ACCESS index, primary-election filing schedules and endorsement claims. The October 12 review of candidate records, professional evaluations, the June Court ODR interview and general-election guides is retained; this update is not a new check of every source. Campaign-finance filings and independent expenditures have not been fully reconciled. Underlying filing statements, earlier paper receipts, the complaint and candidate response were not obtained. Historical registration and contribution allegations described by an outside voter guide remain unverified from primary records. These limits constrain the analysis; the open case is not treated as an enforcement finding. New material evidence could warrant a further update. This article does not constitute legal advice or an independent technical review of AI systems.

Return to the Los Angeles County Voter Guide 2026.