Los Angeles County Superior Court Office 64: Rhonda A. Haymon vs. Maria Ghobadi

Recommendation: Maria Ghobadi — moderate confidence. Ghobadi has the stronger current independent qualification signal: the Los Angeles County Bar Association rated her “Well Qualified,” compared with “Qualified” for Haymon, and reporting documents substantial trial experience that includes homicide cases and prior State Bar prosecution work. The case for Haymon is serious: she has practiced longer, reports more than 100 jury trials, has extensive public-defense experience, and brings teaching and restorative-justice work. Because the bar association’s confidential evaluation has no published candidate-specific rationale and its process has faced credible fairness criticism, the rating is one piece of evidence rather than a verdict. The available record modestly favors Ghobadi, not decisively.

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 the nonpartisan Office 64 seat on the Superior Court on November 3, 2026. The official county primary results show Maria Ghobadi received 750,184 votes (44.05%), Rhonda A. Haymon 717,844 (42.15%), and Francisco Amador 235,003 (13.80%). Because no one won a majority, the top two advanced. The Registrar-Recorder’s candidate filing report identifies Ghobadi as a County deputy district attorney and Haymon as a County deputy public defender; the general-election matchup is also confirmed in the Los Angeles Times’ October 1 race guide. (Official results; official candidate report.)

This is an election for a judicial officer, not a policy representative. Neither candidate can promise to favor prosecutors, defendants, law enforcement, victims, or a preferred outcome. A judge must apply the law and evidence to each case, remain impartial, and give parties a fair process. The relevant question is which record offers the stronger evidence of legal competence, courtroom judgment, integrity, temperament, independence, and readiness to decide cases from both sides of the adversarial system.

What this office can actually control

California Superior Courts are the state’s trial courts of general jurisdiction. They hear criminal matters and civil disputes, and their work includes family, juvenile, probate, traffic, and other specialized calendars. Judges oversee hearings and trials, decide legal questions, manage courtroom proceedings, make findings in bench trials, instruct juries, and issue orders within the law. A judge’s decision may be reviewed through appeal or other lawful procedures. Assignment to a particular type of calendar is set by the court; voters do not elect a judge to one permanent specialty.

Superior Court judges serve six-year terms. California’s Constitution requires a judge to have been an active member of the State Bar or a judge of a court of record in California for at least ten years immediately before selection. Both candidates exceed that threshold: the State Bar records show Haymon was admitted in 2001 and Ghobadi in 2006. The official profiles show both active and display no disciplinary entry in the history table viewed for this review. That is a bounded public-record check, not proof that no complaint, confidential matter, or removed administrative entry has ever existed. (California Courts: judicial selection; Haymon’s State Bar profile; Ghobadi’s State Bar profile.)

The California Code of Judicial Ethics requires judges to preserve judicial independence, avoid impropriety and its appearance, and perform judicial duties impartially, competently, and diligently. That obligation limits what any responsible candidate can pledge: a judge may explain an approach to fair process and case management, but cannot credibly promise a predetermined result or announce how they would decide issues likely to come before them. The County’s judicial election affects who exercises those powers; it does not by itself change court funding, staffing, or statewide rules. (California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canons 1–3; California Courts, how courts work.)

The baseline and what happens under each alternative

This is an open judicial contest rather than an incumbent retention vote. The winner begins a six-year term after the election. Under either choice, the office remains part of the same County Superior Court, and the judge must use the same statutes, constitutional rules, evidence standards, ethical duties, and appellate review. Neither candidate’s election platform can create lawful discretion the office does not possess.

The practical difference is professional formation. Ghobadi’s career has principally involved prosecution, including domestic-violence and child-abduction cases, criminal trials in Los Angeles County, gang-homicide work, and prosecution of attorney-misconduct cases at the State Bar. Haymon’s career has principally involved criminal defense, representing indigent clients in a wide range of cases, more than 100 jury trials by her and her campaign’s account, work in restorative-justice and drug-court settings, public-defender accountability work, and law teaching. Each side of the courtroom develops useful skills; neither role alone proves how someone will perform as a neutral judge.

There is no judicial record to compare because neither candidate currently holds this seat. Nor does the public record reviewed provide a comparable sample of authored opinions, sentencing decisions, case-management outcomes, or independent judicial performance data. The decision therefore depends more heavily than an incumbent contest would on verified practice experience, the independent qualification review, professional standing, and the limits of what campaigns can demonstrate.

What the evidence shows

A close comparison of courtroom experience

Ghobadi was admitted to the California bar in June 2006 and began as a prosecutor in San Joaquin County in 2007. She later worked as a deputy trial counsel for the State Bar, prosecuting attorney-discipline cases, and joined the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 2015. The Los Angeles Times reports she has handled misdemeanors, felonies, and domestic-violence cases, spent seven years in the Gang Homicide Division, completed 87 jury trials including 23 homicide trials, and conducted more than 1,500 preliminary hearings. The trial and hearing counts are reported by the Times from candidate information; they are not independently audited performance measures. They show substantial exposure to courtroom procedure and serious criminal cases, not whether the resulting decisions or outcomes were correct. (Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2026; Ghobadi’s official State Bar profile.)

Haymon was admitted in April 2001 and has worked in public defense since 2001, first in Orange County and then for 23 years in Los Angeles County. The Times reports her caseload has ranged from lower-level theft to homicide and special-circumstance cases, with more than 100 jury trials. She has also taught criminal procedure and litigation as an adjunct professor at Southwestern Law School for six years and has worked in a restorative-justice drug court and the Public Defender’s accountability unit on police-misconduct cases. The defense experience has involved close work with constitutional protections, evidentiary motions, and the consequences of detention and conviction. It is relevant to a judge’s understanding of adversarial process, but it does not establish that she would be more protective of defendants as a judge. (Los Angeles Times; Haymon’s campaign questionnaire at VOTE411.)

The raw counts do not establish a winner. Haymon reports more jury trials and has about five additional years of bar membership. Ghobadi’s publicly reported experience includes a particularly large number of preliminary hearings, more than 20 homicide jury trials, and professional-discipline prosecution. Different kinds of matters create different learning; the available sources do not provide a common denominator such as case complexity, trial role, case outcome, or performance review. Both records establish extensive criminal courtroom practice. Neither establishes comparable depth in civil, family, or probate adjudication, though either could be assigned to those areas.

What the independent rating says—and what it cannot say

The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee rated Ghobadi Well Qualified and Haymon Qualified in 2026. The committee says it evaluates professional ability, experience, competence, integrity, and temperament. Its 2026 press release says the committee distributed between 50 and 75 questionnaires to lawyers and judges familiar with each candidate, conducted phone interviews with at least 25 members of the legal community, and had 35 committee members devote 60 to 80 hours each to the process. These are the committee’s own descriptions of its procedure, not an externally validated test of how a candidate will decide cases. (LACBA’s 2026 ratings announcement; Los Angeles Times’ report of the ratings.)

The distinction is useful because judicial contests provide little direct outcome evidence, and the rating reflects peer input on qualities voters cannot easily observe from a campaign page. But the committee keeps candidate-specific interviews and findings confidential; the public rating does not disclose which evidence separated these two candidates or how much weight each factor received. The gap between “Well Qualified” and “Qualified” should therefore inform, but not substitute for, an independent comparison.

There is also credible reporting that candidates in 2022 and 2024 criticized the committee’s composition and process, including concerns that public defenders were underrepresented and that some interview questions reflected misunderstanding or bias. LAist reported Haymon’s prior experience: in 2024, while seeking a different office, she said she did not hear back after asking about process changes and did not submit her own information; the committee nevertheless evaluated her under its rules and rated her “Not Qualified.” LAist also reported the committee chair said it had added a defense lawyer and introduced implicit-bias training after earlier criticism. These reports warrant caution about treating ratings as neutral ground truth. They do not establish that the 2026 rating of Haymon or Ghobadi was biased, and Haymon’s current 2026 rating is “Qualified,” not “Not Qualified.” (LAist, March 4, 2024; LACBA’s 2026 rating release.)

Professional conduct and the prior contempt episode

The most prominent public controversy involving Haymon is a courtroom conflict during her 2024 campaign against Judge Lynn Olson, who held Haymon in contempt. Haymon has said Olson misused her authority; she also told the Times that the State Bar reviewed the matter and took no disciplinary action or corrective measures. The publicly accessible reporting reviewed here does not provide the contempt order, a complete transcript, the State Bar’s underlying review record, or a judicial finding resolving Haymon’s allegation. This is not enough to infer either misconduct by Haymon or misuse of power by Olson. A single disputed confrontation is relevant to temperament only if supported by the underlying record and placed in context; without that record, it should not decide the race.

The State Bar profile pages currently show both candidates active and no disciplinary entry in the displayed table. Ghobadi’s name also appears as deputy trial counsel on filings in cases where the respondent—not Ghobadi—was the attorney facing discipline. Those captions document her prosecutorial role, not misconduct by her. The Bar’s own profile warns that some administrative suspensions are removed under its policy, so the table is not a complete historical record of every non-disciplinary status event. No public discipline finding against either candidate was located in the records inspected; that is a search result, not a claim that no confidential complaint ever existed.

Breadth, fair process, and role transfer

Ghobadi’s prosecution career provides repeated responsibility for presenting the government’s case, preparing witnesses, proving elements, and litigating criminal procedure. Her State Bar work required applying professional rules to attorneys, a role that can build familiarity with ethics and fair process. Haymon’s defense career required testing the government’s evidence, preserving constitutional claims, and representing clients with limited resources; her teaching work may help translate legal rules into practice. Those are legitimate qualifications for the bench, not evidence that either will favor one side after taking an oath.

The difficult transfer is from advocacy to judging. A prosecutor must pursue a case within ethical limits; a public defender must represent a client zealously within the law. A judge must hear both, enforce procedure consistently, protect the rights of parties, explain decisions, manage calendars, and avoid precommitment. Ghobadi’s Bar rating offers a modest independent signal about readiness for that role. Haymon’s greater seniority, higher reported jury-trial count, teaching, and defense perspective are substantial counterweights. The available record does not show how either candidate performs under this transition in an actual judicial assignment.

Fiscal effects, distribution and opportunity cost

The office does not set court appropriations or independently control staffing. The principal voter-level consequence is how judicial authority is exercised within existing public systems, including how fairly and efficiently a judge handles cases. Both candidates describe case management and access as priorities; neither supplies a costed plan that a single elected judge could implement alone. No credible candidate-specific budget estimate or quantified fiscal impact was found.

Campaign finance provides context about the contest, not a proxy for judicial conduct. A third-party dashboard compiling Form 460 filings reports, through September 19, 2026, Ghobadi’s committee had received $43,535.50 in contributions and $40,030 in loans, spent $57,721.20; Haymon’s committee had received $11,684.07 in contributions and $18,661.85 in loans, spent $37,397.30. These figures distinguish contributions from loans but are not a complete audit of late activity, in-kind support, or independent expenditures. The County’s disclosure page says its finance systems are transitioning and archived statements are available through its online archive and NetFile; filings after the dashboard’s cutoff need a pre-election refresh. No claim about donor influence or a quid pro quo follows from these totals. (The Ballot Book’s Office 64 finance summary; County campaign-disclosure information.)

Applying the ten Civic Outcomes lenses

1. Human welfare. The judge’s decisions can affect liberty, family integrity, safety, property, and access to timely dispute resolution. Both candidates have extensive criminal-court backgrounds; the available public record does not compare their outcomes as judges or their treatment of parties.

2. Distribution and inequality. Court decisions affect people with unequal access to counsel, time, language services, and money. Haymon’s public-defense work directly exposed her to the consequences of limited resources; Ghobadi emphasizes language access and has worked in cases involving vulnerable people. These are relevant experiences, but neither campaign has supplied outcome measures demonstrating a comparative effect.

3. Civil liberties and equal treatment. A judge must enforce constitutional protections and apply the law equally, regardless of a party’s identity or resources. Haymon’s defense practice has centered on litigating constitutional protections; Ghobadi’s prosecutorial practice includes serious cases where fair process is essential to both the accused and victims. Neither background alone establishes how the candidate will rule.

4. Economic and material effects. Criminal judgments can affect employment, housing, immigration consequences, and family stability; civil and family rulings can affect financial security directly. Neither candidate controls broader economic policy, but careful decisions and timely calendars can reduce avoidable costs to litigants.

5. Fiscal reality and opportunity cost. The winner will exercise a judicial office within the court’s adopted budget and staffing structure. Candidate claims about efficiency or access are not costed, and one judge cannot promise countywide caseload reform. The record supports no numerical savings comparison.

6. Institutional integrity and democratic accountability. The nonpartisan election gives voters a direct choice, while judicial ethics, recusal, appellate review, and the Commission on Judicial Performance constrain and review judicial conduct. The LACBA rating can inform this decision but is a private association’s evaluation, not an official government certification.

7. Evidence of effectiveness. Neither candidate has a public judicial record to assess. Trial and hearing counts establish experience, not judicial effectiveness. The LACBA rating is the strongest available independent comparative measure, though its confidential rationale and contested process limit its weight.

8. Implementation and administrative capacity. Trial work, case preparation, and courtroom exposure can prepare a candidate for adjudication; teaching and specialized assignments may help with communication and case management. Both appear to meet baseline experience requirements, but neither has served as a judge, and the record offers limited evidence about managing a courtroom as a neutral decision-maker.

9. Unintended consequences and behavioral response. A judge elected on promises of a particular sentencing, prosecution, defense, or diversion result would risk undermining independence and fair process. Both campaigns describe dignity and fairness; voters should treat those as commitments to lawful procedure rather than promises of preferred outcomes.

10. Reversibility, resilience and future lock-in. Judicial decisions can be challenged through appeals, reconsideration, recusal motions, and other lawful remedies, but those processes require time and resources and cannot undo every harm. The six-year term makes the election consequential; no candidate’s election permanently changes the court’s structure.

The strongest case for and against each candidate

The strongest case for Maria Ghobadi

Ghobadi has substantial experience across criminal proceedings, including a reported 87 jury trials, 23 homicide trials, and more than 1,500 preliminary hearings. Her years prosecuting attorney misconduct at the State Bar broaden her record beyond ordinary criminal prosecution. She received the higher 2026 LACBA rating, “Well Qualified,” from a process that included questionnaires, reference interviews, background review, and candidate interviews. If that evaluation is substantially reliable, it is meaningful evidence about professional judgment and temperament—the qualities not captured by trial totals.

The strongest case against Maria Ghobadi

Her career has been primarily in prosecution, and voters cannot observe a judicial record showing how she would respond to defense arguments, suppression motions, sentencing questions, or civil and family matters. Her larger number of preliminary hearings is not equivalent to a larger number of trials or superior performance. The LACBA rating lacks a public candidate-specific explanation and comes from a process that has faced credible criticism. Voters could reasonably put more weight on Haymon’s longer practice, defense experience, and teaching role.

The strongest case for Rhonda A. Haymon

Haymon has roughly five more years of bar membership, more than two decades in Los Angeles County public defense, and a reported 100-plus jury trials across cases from misdemeanors through serious homicide. Her experience testing government evidence, raising constitutional issues, and working in diversion and restorative-justice settings supplies a perspective that is valuable on a bench whose decisions affect both the state and individuals. Teaching criminal procedure and litigation is relevant to clear legal reasoning. Her 2026 “Qualified” rating confirms the bar committee deemed her qualified even after rating her “Not Qualified” for a different race in 2024.

The strongest case against Rhonda A. Haymon

The unresolved 2024 contempt episode is a legitimate but limited question about courtroom conflict and temperament; the available record does not permit a confident finding either way. The 2026 LACBA committee rated her “Qualified,” a level below Ghobadi’s, although no public rationale lets voters determine why. Her own trial count and campaign claims cannot establish neutral decision-making, and the public record contains no judicial assignment or formal performance assessment showing how she would transition from client advocacy to impartial adjudication.

Campaign claims audit

Funding and interested parties

The two campaigns reported candidate loans as well as outside contributions, and the September 19 finance snapshot shows Ghobadi raised and spent more than Haymon by that date. These differences may affect campaign reach; they do not show that either candidate would favor contributors. The figures are not comprehensive through Election Day and do not establish all independent spending or in-kind support. The County says filings are accessible through its archives and NetFile, but its disclosure service is in transition. Refresh official candidate forms, late contributions, and independent-expenditure reports before publication.

No documented financial conflict tied to either candidate’s public campaign record was identified in the sources reviewed. Judicial campaign fundraising rules and judicial ethics obligations remain relevant after election; campaign contributions do not authorize influence over a case, and any disqualification question must be addressed under applicable law and judicial ethics rules.

What remains unknown

• The committee’s confidential candidate-specific reasoning for rating Ghobadi “Well Qualified” and Haymon “Qualified.” This is the largest limitation on the comparative force of the independent rating.
• The underlying order, transcript, and full procedural history of Haymon’s 2024 contempt episode, as well as a record of the State Bar review she says occurred. The missing materials prevent reliable conclusions about responsibility or temperament.
• Independent, standardized verification of both candidates’ trial and hearing counts, including case type, role, complexity, disposition, and any quality review.
• Comparable evidence about civil, family, juvenile, probate, and judicial case-management experience. Their careers are mostly criminal, while a Superior Court judge may receive other assignments.
• Full campaign-finance reconciliation after September 19, 2026, including late contributions, in-kind support, and outside spending.
• How each candidate would perform as a neutral decision-maker. Neither has an incumbent judicial record, and campaign statements cannot answer this directly.

These gaps keep the recommendation at moderate confidence. They do not establish misconduct by either candidate or make the contest genuinely indeterminate: current peer evaluation, verified career histories, and the available record still modestly differentiate them.

What would change this analysis?

A public, well-supported review showing the LACBA rating rested on inaccurate information or a procedurally unfair assessment of either candidate would reduce or reverse the weight assigned to it. A transcript or order materially clarifying the Haymon contempt episode could strengthen or weaken the concern depending on what it shows; the mere existence of a disputed courtroom event would not be enough. Verified professional findings, documented reversal patterns attributable to a candidate’s legal work, or reliable evidence of recurring ethical or temperament problems would carry substantial weight.

The recommendation could shift toward Haymon if independent records verified a stronger record of courtroom judgment, leadership, legal reasoning, and fair procedure than the available review indicates, or if Ghobadi-specific concerns emerged. It could shift to high confidence for Ghobadi if the committee’s rationale became public and was independently persuasive, and comparable records supported her readiness across likely assignments. New finance records would matter if they revealed material outside influence or undisclosed conflicts; ordinary campaign contributions alone would not justify such an inference.

sherafy.com recommendation: Maria Ghobadi — moderate confidence

The evidence modestly favors Ghobadi. Both candidates exceed the constitutional practice requirement and have deep trial-court experience. Haymon has the longer career and more reported jury trials, while Ghobadi’s record includes serious homicide trials, a very high volume of preliminary hearings, and State Bar attorney-discipline prosecution. Those forms of experience matter, but the available evidence does not let raw counts decide who is better prepared to judge.

The most useful comparative signal is the 2026 LACBA assessment: “Well Qualified” for Ghobadi and “Qualified” for Haymon. I give that result meaningful but limited weight because the committee reports substantial peer research and evaluates competence, integrity, experience, and temperament. Its closed candidate-specific rationale and documented process concerns reduce confidence; the rating is not a government credential, public trial record, or proven predictor of judicial performance.

Haymon’s strongest countercase is substantial: more years in practice, long Los Angeles County defense service, extensive trial work, specialized accountability and restorative-justice assignments, and legal teaching. That experience could bring a valuable perspective to a court where many litigants are vulnerable and represented by unequal resources. The public record, however, does not show that those strengths outweigh the higher current peer rating and Ghobadi’s documented breadth of courtroom and professional-discipline work.

For these reasons, the recommendation is Maria Ghobadi, with moderate rather than high confidence. The choice is based on a narrow evidentiary edge in professional readiness, not a preference for prosecution or a prediction about how Ghobadi would rule in any case. A public and persuasive explanation of the ratings, stronger comparable performance evidence, or substantiated concerns about either candidate could change the conclusion.

Evidence Ledger

References and Further Reading

• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: 2026 official election results. Countywide primary totals for Office 64. The November top-two runoff follows the primary results and the state’s judicial election rules.
• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: final list of qualified candidates. Official filing report listing Office 64 candidates and occupational ballot designations for the primary; not itself the November runoff roster.
• California Courts: judicial selection. Explains judge qualifications, terms, elections, and appointments.
• California Courts: how courts work. General description of Superior Court trial functions and case types.
• California Code of Judicial Ethics. Primary ethics source; Canons 1–3 cover integrity, independence, impartiality, competence, diligence, and public confidence.
• State Bar of California: Rhonda A. Haymon profile and Maria Lisa Ghobadi profile. Official license status, admission dates, and visible discipline/administrative history; administrative entries may be removed under State Bar policy.
• Los Angeles County Bar Association’s 2026 Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee ratings. LACBA press release as reproduced by a press-release distributor; supports its published ratings and its account of the evaluation method, not independent validation.
• Los Angeles Times: Office 64 and other County judicial contests. October 2026 reporting on career histories, experience, ratings, and Haymon’s account of the contempt matter. Candidate counts and statements are reported rather than audited.
• LAist: 2024 reporting on criticism of LACBA judicial evaluations. Reports candidate allegations, committee composition and response, and Haymon’s 2024 interaction with the evaluation process; those allegations do not establish bias in this 2026 race.
• VOTE411: Office 64 candidate responses. Candidate-submitted biographies and answers about experience and court priorities; useful for positions, not independent verification.
• Los Angeles County: campaign disclosure information and compiled 2026 finance summary. County explains Form 460 access; the secondary dashboard supplies period-bounded totals through September 19, 2026.
• Commission on Judicial Performance. Official description of the independent body that investigates and disciplines California judges; relevant to the safeguards and accountability mechanisms available after election.

Editorial currency and research limits

Research currency: October 11, 2026. The ballot comparison uses the County’s current results and candidate records and October 1 reporting; bar status was reviewed on October 11; campaign-finance figures are through September 19. Before release, confirm the final November ballot, any new court or professional records concerning the reported contempt episode, late finance filings and outside expenditures, and any updated LACBA explanation. This is a desk-based editorial comparison, not a legal opinion, an independent peer evaluation, or an audit of either candidate’s case statistics.

Return to the Los Angeles County Voter Guide 2026.