Los Angeles County Superior Court Office 131: David Ross vs. Donna Tryfman

sherafy.com recommendation: no candidate recommendation — genuinely indeterminate; low confidence in a directional choice. The verified public record supports a serious case for both David Ross and Donna Tryfman, but it does not show a dependable difference in legal competence, ethics, courtroom judgment or readiness for a full Superior Court assignment. Tryfman’s documented branch leadership and varied judge-pro-tem work are meaningful strengths. Ross’s 30 years in public defense, reported trial and preliminary-hearing volume, appellate and writ work, teaching and civil practice are meaningful strengths too. Neither side has a public judicial record that can resolve how the candidates would perform as elected judges. This is not a claim that the candidates are interchangeable or that voters should abstain; it is a conclusion that the available evidence does not justify Sherafy choosing one.

This is a nonpartisan Los Angeles County contest for one six-year Superior Court term beginning after the November 2026 election. The candidates advanced from a four-person June primary. Both are active California lawyers, both have served as judges pro tem, and the Los Angeles County Bar Association rated each Qualified. The evidence and its limits are set out below.

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

What the choice actually is

Los Angeles County voters will choose one candidate for Superior Court Office 131 on November 3, 2026. The Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk lists both candidates in the office’s ballot-code directory for the November general election. The June 2 primary had four candidates. In the county’s certified canvass, Donna Tryfman received 612,858 votes (37.31%) and David Ross received 546,032 (33.24%), placing first and second; neither received a majority, so the contest moved to the general election. These are the two finalists, not a retention vote on an incumbent. Official November ballot-code directory · Certified June primary canvass

The ballot labels identify Tryfman as a Deputy Public Defender for Los Angeles County and Ross as a Deputy Alternate Public Defender for the county. The Alternate Public Defender is a separate office that represents defendants when the Public Defender cannot represent them, including conflicts; the title does not mean Ross has less courtroom responsibility. Both candidates’ campaign biographies describe long public-defense careers. County candidate filing report · Los Angeles County Alternate Public Defender

What this office can actually control

California Superior Courts are trial courts of general jurisdiction. Their judges hear criminal and civil cases and, depending on assignment, family, juvenile, probate, traffic and other matters. A judge applies statutes, constitutional rules, precedent and evidence to individual disputes; the judge does not set general policy, determine the guilt of a person outside the trial process, or act as a prosecutor or defense lawyer. Judicial discretion is bounded by law and review.

Superior Court judges are elected countywide to six-year terms, subject to the constitutional and statutory rules governing judicial office. California requires a judge of a court of record to have been a State Bar member or a judge of a court of record in California for at least ten years immediately before selection. Both candidates substantially exceed the minimum based on their State Bar admission histories. California Constitution, Article VI, sections 16–17 · California Constitution, Article VI, section 15

The relevant comparison is therefore not whose prior advocacy position a voter prefers. A defense lawyer’s job is to test the government’s evidence and protect a client within professional duties. That work does not establish how the lawyer would treat parties once impartiality is required. More useful evidence includes litigation preparation, legal analysis, trial and hearing experience, temperament, leadership, ethics, judicial service and demonstrated ability to follow fair procedures. The California Code of Judicial Ethics applies to candidates as well as judges and bars campaign statements that commit a candidate to likely cases or knowingly misstate qualifications.

The baseline and the two candidates

Neither candidate currently holds this elected judgeship, so voters are selecting a new judge rather than deciding whether to retain a sitting judge with a record of rulings. The common baseline is the court’s existing judge-selection system: an elected judge would take a six-year term and be subject to appellate review, judicial ethics rules and the Commission on Judicial Performance’s disciplinary jurisdiction. Those safeguards can address legal error or misconduct within their respective scopes; they do not guarantee a candidate’s courtroom temperament or substitute for voters’ evaluation.

Donna Tryfman. The Los Angeles Times reports that Tryfman joined the county Public Defender’s Office in 1998, has tried more than 100 jury cases, supervised the Eastlake juvenile-court branch with 15 lawyers, and worked in a collaborative drug court and the Major Cases Unit on capital-homicide litigation. The Times also reports that she has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem in traffic and small-claims matters, volunteered with teen courts, received the 2025 Gideon Award as felony attorney of the year, served as president of the California Public Defenders Association from 2015 through 2020, chaired Beverly Hills’ Rent Stabilization Commission and served in a leadership role with the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Conference of California Bar Associations. These facts show criminal trial, management, judicial and professional-association experience; they do not amount to a full elected-judge record. Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2026 · Tryfman campaign biography

David Ross. The Times reports that Ross passed the California bar in 1994, joined Riverside County’s Public Defender’s Office in 1995 and became a Los Angeles County Deputy Alternate Public Defender in 2000. It reports 113 jury trials, more than 2,000 preliminary hearings and approximately 10,000 indigent clients represented, and says he has worked in several county branches. La Defensa’s voter guide, which interviewed candidates and reviewed questionnaires, reports that Ross handled drug-court matters, writs and appeals in Riverside and taught legal writing and research as an adjunct professor at Western State University College of Law from 2002 to 2006. Ross’s own campaign website includes a retired Alternate Public Defender’s statement that he completed 77 jury trials during that official’s tenure and that he served as a Los Angeles County judge pro tem. These reported figures have not been independently audited, and the two candidates’ counts may use different definitions and time periods. Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2026 · La Defensa, Office 131 profile and vetting method · Ross campaign biography and endorsements

Professional ratings and public records. LAist reports that LACBA rated both candidates Qualified. Its description says candidates complete questionnaires, face an evaluation committee and provide 50 to 75 professional references; LACBA does not usually publish the reasons for an individual rating. This private professional evaluation is relevant evidence, but it is neither a state licensing determination nor a ranking between Ross and Tryfman. Both candidates received the same rating. The State Bar’s public profiles show each lawyer as Active: Ross was admitted December 12, 1994, and Tryfman June 12, 1995. The public profiles’ displayed discipline fields contain no disciplinary entry. The Bar cautions that some administrative suspensions can be removed from profiles, and the absence of a displayed disciplinary entry is not proof that no complaint was ever made. LAist guide and explanation of the LACBA process · Ross State Bar profile · Tryfman State Bar profile

Neither candidate has served as an elected Superior Court judge, so there is no elected-judge opinion set to compare for reversal rates, written reasoning, case management, recusal decisions or discipline by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Their judge-pro-tem service is relevant, but the accessible reporting describes different assignments and does not provide common measures of caseload, duration, evaluation or outcomes. No public record reviewed established a sustained pattern of reversals, sanctions or professional misconduct by either candidate. That is a bounded finding about the sources reviewed, not a finding that every relevant record has been searched.

What the evidence shows

The strongest directly comparable credential is that both have spent roughly three decades in criminal defense practice and have tried many jury cases. Tryfman’s reported 100-plus trials and Ross’s reported 113 trials are close enough—and not measured on a common audited basis—that the totals do not reliably distinguish them. Ross’s reported preliminary hearings add substantial experience with early case assessment, evidence and probable-cause questions. Tryfman’s Major Cases work and juvenile-court leadership show experience with serious cases and supervision. Neither specialty alone predicts performance across the full range of a general-jurisdiction court.

Tryfman’s management and judicial-pro-tem record is the clearest potential comparative advantage for her. Leading a 15-lawyer branch suggests responsibility for colleagues, case operations and institutional coordination. Her reported traffic and small-claims assignments mean she has performed at least some judicial work outside the criminal-defense role. The available sources do not describe the duration, volume or evaluation of those assignments, and Ross’s campaign materials also report pro-tem service. The public record therefore supports a difference in documented detail, not a confirmed difference in competence.

Ross’s most distinctive strengths are the breadth of reported defense tasks, earlier appellate and writ work, teaching and journalism. Writ and appellate work demands legal research and written argument; teaching legal writing may support clear explanations; journalism required fact-gathering and communication. Those experiences are relevant to careful rulings and understandable courtroom instructions, but the record does not include a comparative review of either candidate’s actual written work. La Defensa’s interview account of Ross’s attention to access barriers is an advocacy organization’s interpretation of his questionnaire and interview, not an independent test of how he would rule.

Tryfman’s reported leadership of a statewide public-defender association and her work on bar legislative proposals show professional and institutional engagement. Her campaign also identifies her Beverly Hills rent-stabilization service and teen-court volunteer work. Ross’s earlier work as a legislative aide and documentary journalist offers different public-service experience. These records may inform a voter’s view of communication or judgment, but a campaign endorsement, association office or prior policy work cannot establish impartiality by itself. Judicial ethics require both candidates to avoid promises about outcomes in cases that could come before them.

Fiscal effects, distribution and opportunity cost

There is no material difference in county budget authority between the candidates. A Superior Court judge works within a court system funded through state and local appropriations and does not independently set the court’s budget. Campaign fundraising is relevant to transparency and potential future recusal duties, but the available record does not support a complete, like-for-like reconciliation of the candidates’ Forms 460, late contribution reports, independent expenditures and total campaign spending. No comparative fundraising total is presented here.

A judge’s decisions can have substantial non-budget consequences for litigants, families, public agencies and the county jail system. But campaign promises about detention, sentencing, diversion or efficiency are not forecasts of a particular judge’s decisions. The evidence reviewed does not permit a credible monetary estimate of either candidate’s likely effects on court costs, incarceration, case duration or public safety.

Applying the ten Civic Outcomes lenses

1. Human welfare. Both candidates’ criminal-defense experience places them close to the consequences of pretrial detention, trial delay, conviction and sentencing. Tryfman’s juvenile and collaborative-court experience and Ross’s reported work on diversion, drug courts and mental-health-related matters are relevant. The record does not establish comparative case outcomes or predict the welfare effects of either future judge.

2. Distribution and inequality. Ross’s work representing indigent clients and his reported focus on transportation, childcare and access barriers are relevant to unequal ability to participate in court. Tryfman’s public-defense service, juvenile work and leadership also involve people with limited resources. Neither candidate has a public judicial record showing how they would treat similarly situated parties across income, race, disability, immigration status or other protected characteristics.

3. Civil liberties and equal treatment. Both have practiced in roles that involve constitutional defense and both must apply the same law impartially on the bench. Their prior advocacy cannot be used as a shortcut for predicting bias. The State Bar’s displayed histories do not list public discipline, subject to the profiles’ stated limits on displayed administrative history.

4. Economic and material effects. Judicial decisions can affect liberty, employment, housing, family stability and access to services. Tryfman’s pro-tem work in small claims and traffic matters gives her some reported experience with lower-stakes disputes; Ross’s reported civil practice and legal teaching add relevant breadth. Available records do not compare either candidate’s ability to manage those dockets.

5. Fiscal reality and opportunity cost. Neither candidate controls the court’s appropriation. Their decisions may carry indirect fiscal consequences, but there is no defensible evidence here to forecast comparative jail, litigation or administrative costs. Campaign finance could inform independence and public confidence; the filing review is incomplete and should be refreshed before publication.

6. Institutional integrity and democratic accountability. Both are seeking an elected six-year judicial term. LACBA’s equal Qualified ratings provide a professional signal but no public candidate-specific rationale. Voters can evaluate their public records; appellate review and judicial discipline provide separate institutional checks after election.

7. Evidence of effectiveness. Reported trial, hearing, management and pro-tem experience are indicators of preparation, not causal evidence that one will produce fairer or more accurate outcomes. No comparable study of their work product, courtroom observations, disposition patterns or pro-tem evaluations was available.

8. Implementation and administrative capacity. Tryfman’s reported leadership of a 15-lawyer branch is direct evidence of supervisory responsibility. Ross’s senior trial work, extensive hearings and appellate practice indicate substantial case preparation experience. Neither record quantifies judicial calendar management, docket disposition or courtroom administration as an elected judge.

9. Unintended consequences and behavioral response. A judge can influence whether litigants perceive the process as understandable, evenhanded and respectful. Campaign messaging may also incentivize candidates to emphasize values or endorsements that resonate with voters. No reliable evidence in this review measures how either candidate’s style would affect compliance, settlement, appeals or trust.

10. Reversibility, resilience and future lock-in. The election selects one judge for a six-year term. That is a meaningful period of authority but is not permanent constitutional change. Appellate review can correct legal errors in cases, and the Commission on Judicial Performance can address qualifying misconduct; neither mechanism can fully undo a lost liberty, family disruption, expense or delay. This makes careful evaluation important while still requiring evidence before disqualifying either candidate.

The strongest case for and against each candidate

The strongest case for Tryfman is that she combines long trial practice with documented organizational leadership and judicial-pro-tem work. The public reporting describes supervising a sizeable juvenile-court branch, working with a collaborative drug court, litigating serious homicide matters and handling traffic and small-claims cases as a pro tem judge. That mix is unusually relevant to courtroom readiness, supervision and respectful process. She also has professional-association leadership and a peer-bestowed award. The limit is that her pro-tem record and leadership results are not independently evaluated in the available sources, and the same public record does not establish how she would perform across the court’s broader civil and family caseloads.

The strongest case for Ross is that he brings a similarly long defense career with a broader documented mix of trial, preliminary-hearing, writ and appellate work, plus legal-writing teaching and journalism experience. His reported 113 jury trials and more than 2,000 preliminary hearings suggest extensive direct exposure to evidence and courtroom process; his prior work in Riverside and several Los Angeles branches may broaden his institutional perspective. The limit is that these figures are reported rather than audited, his pro-tem assignment details are sparse, and the record does not independently evaluate his written work or performance.

The strongest case against Tryfman is that the public record offers less comparative detail about her legal writing, appellate work and experience across the civil and family matters that make up part of a Superior Court judge’s broad jurisdiction. Her pro-tem service and branch leadership are relevant, but their duration, evaluations and outcomes are not publicly established here. Those gaps limit what voters can compare; they do not establish poor performance.

The strongest case against Ross is that the available record provides thinner detail about his direct judicial assignments and supervisory work, while reported volume—trials, hearings and clients—does not itself demonstrate judicial temperament, sound legal reasoning or effective docket management. His public record therefore leaves more unanswered about readiness to move from representing parties to managing a courtroom. This is a limitation of the evidence available, not proof of a deficiency; both candidates have some reported pro-tem service, and no comparable evaluations were located.

Campaign claims audit

Funding and interested parties

Both campaigns have registered committees. Ross’s campaign identifies Committee to Elect David Ross, FPPC ID 1485476; Tryfman’s site identifies Donna Tryfman for Judge 2026, FPPC ID 1487797. Ross’s campaign website lists support from labor organizations, Democratic clubs, individual elected officials, lawyers and judges. Tryfman’s site lists judicial, bar, labor, political and community endorsements. La Defensa reports that Ross told its vetting process he had not accepted law-enforcement contributions and would not accept corporate or PAC donations; this is a candidate statement relayed by an advocacy group, not a reconciled finding from filings.

Endorsements show who is willing to support a candidate, not how the candidate will rule. Judicial endorsements can indicate professional confidence; union and political endorsements may help voters understand a campaign’s coalition. Neither type proves competence, independence or improper influence. The committee IDs and public disclosure systems allow a fuller review, but this article did not independently reconcile all Forms 460, 497 and 496, loans, transfers or independent expenditures. The finance record is therefore incomplete and should be refreshed before any release.

What remains unknown

• Neither candidate’s full State Bar disciplinary file, confidential complaints, court-appointed evaluation materials or complete workplace history is public in the records reviewed. The public profiles show Active licenses and no displayed disciplinary entry, with the State Bar’s stated limits.
• No independently audited common dataset confirms trial counts, hearing counts, client totals or comparative workload.
• The extent and performance evaluation of each candidate’s judge-pro-tem service are not established on a common basis.
• No representative set of public legal writing, judicial rulings, courtroom observations or civil-case outcomes could be compared.
• Candidate campaign finance and outside spending were not fully reconciled; no donor-based inference is made.
• Judicial campaigns are constrained in how candidates can discuss issues likely to come before them. Their campaign descriptions are not a reliable substitute for observing actual judicial decisions.

These gaps prevent a robust comparative judgment. They do not show that either candidate is unqualified. The State Bar and LAist records support minimum professional standing, and the candidate profiles establish substantial relevant experience, but the most useful differentiators—judicial temperament in practice, work product and pro-tem evaluations—are either unavailable or not comparable.

What would change this analysis?

Evidence supporting a recommendation for Tryfman would include independently reviewed pro-tem evaluations or courtroom observations demonstrating consistently fair, well-reasoned treatment across different case types, or verified documentation of her branch management and case outcomes. Evidence supporting a recommendation for Ross would include independently reviewed writing, pro-tem evaluations, courtroom observations or verified records showing stronger performance in judicial tasks than the public record presently establishes.

A substantiated ethics finding, material discipline, serious and repeated courtroom misconduct, or reliable evidence that either candidate could not treat parties fairly would change the comparison substantially. So would a new LACBA rating with a disclosed, candidate-specific rationale or credible evidence that the current ratings were revised. A complete finance review showing material undisclosed support or spending would warrant updating the independence analysis, though donations alone would not prove bias.

sherafy.com recommendation: No candidate recommendation — genuinely indeterminate; low confidence in a directional choice

The evidence does not establish a material qualification gap. Both candidates have roughly three decades of public-defense experience, both have represented large numbers of clients, both have tried more than 100 jury cases according to reported figures, both have some judge-pro-tem experience, both are Active members of the State Bar, and both received the same LACBA rating. Their strongest records differ in emphasis: Tryfman has more fully documented branch leadership and practical judicial assignments; Ross has more quantified preliminary-hearing work and reported appellate, writ, teaching and civil-practice experience. There is no sound basis to turn those non-identical profiles into a reliable ranking.

The deciding values are competence, impartiality, reasoned decision-making and fair treatment. Tryfman’s management and pro-tem work are persuasive reasons to vote for her. Ross’s courtroom volume and legal-writing, appellate and communication experience are persuasive reasons to vote for him. Both opposing cases survive scrutiny because the available evidence does not include common performance measures or a meaningful judicial record.

For the Civic Outcomes Standard, a competitive choice requires evidence that one candidate has a defensible advantage on the qualities that matter to this office. The record establishes substantial qualifications for both, but it does not resolve the narrow areas that could distinguish them. We therefore make no candidate recommendation. A voter may reasonably choose based on which documented experience they value most, but Sherafy’s evidence-led judgment is that selecting a winner would be more certain than the evidence allows.

Evidence Ledger

References and Further Reading

• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, November 3, 2026 Ballot Marking Device Code List. Current official directory used to verify the general-election contest and candidates.
• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, June 2, 2026 Semifinal/Official Canvass Statement of Votes Cast. Official county primary results; Office 131 appears in the contest canvass. The final certified canvass was published June 26.
• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Final List of Qualified Candidates to Appear on the Ballot. Official filing report identifying candidate names, ballot designations and contest; it records the primary ballot roster, while the November roster is verified separately above.
• California Constitution, Article VI, sections 15–17. Qualifications, election and term rules for Superior Court judges.
• California Courts, Superior Courts. Judicial branch description of Superior Court jurisdiction and place in the California court system.
• California Code of Judicial Ethics. Supreme Court-adopted standards governing judicial conduct and campaign activity; candidates must not promise outcomes in likely cases or knowingly misstate qualifications.
• David Arthur Ross, California State Bar profile. Shows Active status, admission date and public discipline/administrative history, subject to the Bar’s profile limits.
• Donna Tryfman, California State Bar profile. Shows Active status, admission date and public discipline/administrative history, subject to the Bar’s profile limits.
• LAist, 2026 Los Angeles County Superior Court judicial candidate guide. Confirms both candidates’ LACBA ratings and explains the bar association’s process and its limits.
• Los Angeles Times, Office 131 profiles, October 1, 2026. Independent candidate reporting on trial work, leadership, pro-tem service and professional background; candidate-reported counts were not independently audited.
• La Defensa, 2026 candidate guide, Office 131. Advocacy organization’s questionnaire and interview-based profile of Ross; useful for candidate responses and access-to-justice framing, not an independent prediction of judicial decisions.
• Donna Tryfman campaign website. Candidate biography, campaign statements and endorsements; self-published material.
• David Ross campaign website. Candidate biography, campaign statements, endorsements and committee identification; self-published material.
• Los Angeles County campaign disclosure information. Entry point for campaign disclosure records; a complete candidate-to-candidate filing reconciliation was not completed.

Editorial currency and research limits

Research currency: Updated October 11, 2026. The current LAVote November ballot-code list confirms David Ross and Donna Tryfman are the Office 131 general-election candidates. June certified primary results, State Bar profiles, LAist ratings and October 1 Los Angeles Times profiles were also checked for this draft. Trial and client counts remain reported rather than audited. Campaign finance and outside spending need a complete current reconciliation before release.

This article is a researched editorial judgment, not a judicial performance guarantee or legal advice. The recommendation is separate from factual confidence and forecast certainty. No independent expert review, user review, site upload or publication is claimed. Before release, confirm the final official ballot and Bar profiles and review current campaign filings and outside spending.

Return to the Los Angeles County Voter Guide 2026.