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

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.

Correction and update — October 12, 2026: A further evidence review identified material context missing from the October 11 version. The courtroom contempt incident involving Haymon and Judge Lynn Olson occurred in 2023, not during the 2024 campaign. A 2024 Los Angeles Times editorial reported reviewing the transcript and said the contempt order had been upheld on appeal; we have not independently obtained those court records. We have also added attributed assessments of professional conduct and the candidates’ relevant endorsements, while distinguishing allegations from verified findings. The sherafy.com recommendation remains Maria Ghobadi, at moderate confidence.

Author’s note — personal voting preference: Although this article’s recommendation follows the sherafy.com Civic Outcomes Standard, I am personally leaning toward Rhonda A. Haymon. I place particular value on her public-defense experience representing individuals against the institutional power of the state. I also have concerns, as a matter of personal judgment, about how prosecutorial incentives can affect the pursuit of justice. This is not an allegation against Ghobadi or a finding that prosecutors cannot be impartial judges. My personal weighting of these considerations is separate from the published evidence-based recommendation. Readers should examine the record and make their own judgment.

Recommendation: Maria Ghobadi — moderate confidence. Both candidates are experienced trial lawyers. Ghobadi received a 2026 Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) rating of Well Qualified, compared with Qualified for Haymon. Ghobadi also brings substantial homicide-trial, preliminary-hearing, and State Bar attorney-discipline experience. Further review uncovered additional, partly independent concerns about Haymon’s professional interactions and a reported appellate affirmance of a contempt finding. Those accounts deserve weight, but they are not equivalent to a publicly reviewed disciplinary record or direct evidence of future judicial performance.

The case for Haymon remains substantial: she has practiced longer, reports more than 100 jury trials, has decades of public-defense experience, and has worked in legal teaching, restorative-justice settings, and police-accountability matters. Organizations that interviewed or researched her have endorsed her, including La Defensa and Knock LA. The LACBA process is confidential and has faced credible criticism; its ratings assess candidates individually rather than as a head-to-head contest. The available record therefore favors Ghobadi modestly, not decisively.

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

What the choice actually is

Los Angeles County voters will choose a judge for the nonpartisan Office 64 seat on the Superior Court on November 3, 2026. The County’s official June 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%). No candidate received a majority, so the top two advanced to the general election.

The County’s candidate filing report identifies Ghobadi as a deputy district attorney and Haymon as a deputy public defender. The November matchup is also confirmed by the Los Angeles Times’ October 1 judicial-election guide.

This is an election for a judicial officer, not a policy representative. A judge must apply the governing law to the facts of each case, protect procedural rights, remain impartial, and explain decisions. Neither candidate can legitimately promise to favor prosecutors, defendants, police, victims, or any predetermined result. The relevant question is which record gives voters stronger evidence of competence, integrity, courtroom temperament, independence, and readiness to hear both sides.

What this office can actually control

California’s Superior Courts are the state’s trial courts of general jurisdiction. They hear criminal and civil cases, including family, juvenile, probate, traffic, and other proceedings. Judges manage hearings and trials, make legal and evidentiary rulings, instruct juries, decide matters without juries when authorized, and issue orders subject to lawful review. Assignments are determined by the court; voters are not choosing a permanent criminal-court or civil-court specialist. The California Courts’ explanation of how courts work describes these powers and limitations.

Superior Court judges serve six-year terms and generally must have at least ten years of qualifying California legal or judicial experience immediately before selection. Both candidates meet that requirement. The official State Bar profiles list Haymon as admitted in 2001 and Ghobadi as admitted in 2006. Both profiles displayed active status and no public disciplinary entry in the history tables reviewed for this analysis. That is not proof that no confidential complaint, investigation, or subsequently removed administrative entry ever existed. See the California Courts’ judicial-selection guidance.

The California Code of Judicial Ethics requires independence, integrity, impartiality, competence, and diligence. Candidates can discuss their experience and commitment to fair process, but the job does not allow precommitment to the outcome of future cases. Electing either candidate changes who exercises judicial authority, not the court’s budget, staffing allocations, or statewide law.

The baseline and what happens under each alternative

Office 64 is an open contest, not a retention vote on a sitting judge. The winner will enter a six-year judicial term within the same Superior Court system, with the same statutes, constitutional requirements, judicial ethics, assignment rules, and avenues for review.

The main distinction is professional formation. Ghobadi has principally represented the government: first in prosecution in San Joaquin County, then as a State Bar deputy trial counsel prosecuting attorney-misconduct matters, and since 2015 in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Her work includes domestic violence, serious felonies, gang homicide, and numerous preliminary hearings.

Haymon has principally represented defendants, including people unable to afford counsel. Her practice has involved jury trials, constitutional litigation, serious felony cases, restorative-justice and drug-court settings, police-accountability work, and legal teaching. These experiences offer a different vantage point on government power, evidentiary weaknesses, individual liberty, and the consequences of detention and conviction.

Neither candidate has a public record of decisions as a sitting judge to compare. Trial experience establishes preparation for courtroom work but does not itself measure impartial judicial reasoning, calendar management, or fairness from the bench. Both candidates must make the transition from advocating for a side to adjudicating disputes between sides.

What the evidence shows

A close comparison of courtroom experience

Ghobadi was admitted to the California bar in June 2006, joined the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office in 2007, served as a deputy trial counsel for the State Bar, and joined the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 2015. The Los Angeles Times’ October 2026 reporting says she has handled 87 jury trials, including 23 homicide trials, and more than 1,500 preliminary hearings. Those counts are reported through candidate information; they have not been independently audited as performance measures.

Haymon was admitted in April 2001 and has worked in public defense since 2001, first in Orange County and then in Los Angeles County. The Times reports that she has handled cases ranging from petty theft to homicide and special-circumstances charges and has tried more than 100 jury trials. She also reports six years teaching criminal procedure and litigation at Southwestern Law School, a restorative-justice drug-court assignment, and consultation on police-misconduct matters for the Public Defender’s accountability unit. Her VOTE411 candidate responses offer further details about her stated experience and priorities.

Haymon has approximately five more years of bar membership and a higher reported jury-trial count. Ghobadi reports more than 1,500 preliminary hearings, substantial homicide-trial exposure, and attorney-discipline prosecution. These numbers have different denominators and do not show which lawyer performed better. They reveal two experienced criminal practitioners whose skills developed in different institutional roles; neither record establishes comparable civil, family, or probate adjudication experience.

What the independent rating says—and what it cannot say

The LACBA Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee’s 2026 release rates Ghobadi Well Qualified and Haymon Qualified. Both are affirmative qualification ratings. LACBA says it evaluates professional ability, experience, competence, integrity, and temperament. Its release describes distributing 50–75 questionnaires concerning each candidate, conducting at least 25 telephone reference interviews, and substantial committee work. Those are the association’s descriptions of its own process, not independent verification of predictive accuracy.

As LAist’s 2026 explanation of the process makes clear, each candidate receives an individual evaluation; the committee does not conduct a direct contest between the two people seeking one seat. Its candidate-specific discussions and evidence remain confidential. Voters cannot see what exactly separated Ghobadi’s rating from Haymon’s, or reliably infer that the rating difference measures a corresponding difference in future performance.

The ratings still matter. They reflect research and professional observations beyond campaign biographies and raw trial counts, including qualities such as demeanor and professional judgment. But they should be treated as one imperfect comparative signal, not as an official state credential or a substitute for independent analysis.

The process has also faced reported criticism. LAist’s 2024 investigation documented objections about bias, representation, and how evaluations were conducted. Haymon said she withheld her own materials in 2024 after seeking information about changes to the process, and the committee rated her Not Qualified under its rules using information available without her participation. That old rating should not be treated as equivalent to an adverse determination following full candidate participation. Her relevant, current 2026 rating is Qualified. LAist’s newer reporting also describes an effort to recruit attorneys across defense, prosecution, and civil practice. None of this establishes that either candidate’s 2026 rating was improperly determined.

Professional conduct and the prior contempt episode

The earlier article understated what had already been publicly reported about Haymon’s courtroom confrontation with Judge Lynn D. Olson. The incident occurred in 2023. Olson held Haymon in contempt; Haymon later challenged Olson in the 2024 judicial election, which is why the two years can be confused.

In a February 2024 editorial, the Los Angeles Times editorial board reported examining the transcript, judged Olson’s contempt order justified, and stated that it was upheld on appeal. It described Haymon as repeatedly interrupting or criticizing the judge despite warnings. This is a substantive, attributable account of a primary record and a reported appellate result—not merely a dispute between campaign statements. However, sherafy.com has not independently obtained or reviewed the transcript, contempt order, or appellate disposition, so the Times’ characterization and account of the appeal must remain attributed to that source. An upheld contempt order does not, by itself, establish how Haymon would perform as a judge or settle every allegation she makes about unequal treatment.

Haymon disputes Olson’s use of authority. As the Times reported in October 2026, Haymon says the State Bar reviewed the matter and took no disciplinary action or corrective measures. The public State Bar profile reviewed here shows no discipline entry. That distinction matters: a contempt order and professional-license discipline are different proceedings. The lack of reported State Bar action is relevant, but it does not reverse the contempt order or resolve the appellate reasoning.

There is separate information about professional interactions. In its November 2026 voter guide, LA Forward says that after it declined to endorse Haymon in 2024, it considered her response unusually unprofessional. This is LA Forward’s account of a direct interaction; the underlying communications have not been independently reviewed here. Knock LA’s November guide reports hearing both praise for Haymon’s determination as an advocate and criticism of her ability to work collaboratively. Knock LA nevertheless endorses Haymon. Its impressions are sourced to its reporting and conversations, not a formal disciplinary finding. We cannot determine whether the different accounts draw on overlapping sources or independently establish a broader pattern.

An additional disclosure is warranted: Ghobadi’s campaign lists Judge Lynn Olson among its judicial endorsers. This connection is relevant context when evaluating support and competing narratives around the contempt episode. It does not, without further evidence, show that Olson influenced Ghobadi’s LACBA rating, that Ghobadi had any role in the 2023 incident, or that either candidate acted improperly.

The responsible finding is narrower than either extreme. There is credible, attributed evidence of a courtroom conflict and additional professional-interaction concerns; there is no verified basis in the records reviewed to declare Haymon generally unfit, to establish improper retaliation by Olson, or to turn one event into a complete character assessment. Temperament deserves meaningful weight because judges must manage conflict and maintain procedural fairness, but these sources do not justify high confidence about either candidate’s future judicial behavior.

Breadth, fair process, and role transfer

Ghobadi’s prosecution work entails presenting and testing criminal evidence, preparing witnesses, establishing elements, and managing complex proceedings. Her State Bar experience also involved applying professional rules to attorney misconduct cases. These are relevant to legal rigor and judicial ethics, but prosecution alone does not demonstrate neutrality toward defendants.

Haymon’s defense work entails scrutinizing government evidence, preserving constitutional objections, protecting people with limited means, and challenging state action. Her teaching and specialized assignments are potentially useful for explanation, courtroom access, and an awareness of unequal institutional power. Those strengths do not establish that she would be more impartial—or less impartial—than a former prosecutor.

The transition is the central question. Prosecutors and defense lawyers advocate within ethical boundaries; judges must hear both sides, control proceedings without unnecessary conflict, make defensible rulings, and give each person a fair process. Ghobadi’s higher 2026 peer rating and the additional attributed concerns regarding Haymon modestly strengthen the case for Ghobadi’s readiness. Haymon’s deeper defense experience, longer practice, and support from organizations that evaluated her remain real counterweights. No record reviewed directly measures how either would perform after taking the judicial oath.

Fiscal effects, distribution and opportunity cost

Office 64 does not set appropriations, create courtwide staffing positions, or determine statewide legal policy. The direct public-interest effects come from how one judge exercises authority: protecting rights, treating parties fairly, avoiding avoidable delay, and managing hearings and trials. Neither campaign supplies a credible, costed plan that a single judge could implement to produce measurable countywide savings. There is no basis for a candidate-specific fiscal-effect estimate.

Campaign finance provides context but is not a measure of judicial integrity. Transparency USA’s 2026 Office 64 summary, compiling campaign disclosures and showing a data cutoff of September 19, 2026 in the underlying review, lists $43,535.50 in contributions, $40,030 in loans, and $57,721.20 in expenditures for Ghobadi; it lists $11,684.07 in contributions, $18,661.85 in loans, and $37,397.30 in expenditures for Haymon. Contributions and loans are not interchangeable. These figures are period-bounded aggregator totals, not a comprehensive audit of late filings, independent expenditures, or in-kind support. The County’s campaign-disclosure portal is the appropriate route for checking source filings.

Endorsements likewise identify constituencies, not causal evidence of how a judge will decide cases. Ghobadi’s published endorsement list includes judges, prosecutors, some criminal-defense attorneys, unions, Democratic organizations, and law-enforcement organizations. Haymon’s published endorsements include public-defense and community figures, and she is supported by organizations including La Defensa and Knock LA. LA Forward, which expresses reluctance to endorse prosecutors over public defenders as a general preference, nonetheless recommends Ghobadi because of its own concerns about Haymon’s interactions. These are distinct, values-informed assessments; none substitutes for evidence of judicial performance or establishes donor influence.

Applying the ten Civic Outcomes lenses

1. Human welfare. Judicial decisions can affect liberty, family stability, victim safety, property, health, and timely dispute resolution. Both candidates have substantial criminal courtroom experience. Neither has a measured judicial record proving superior outcomes.

2. Distribution and inequality. Poorer litigants and people without institutional resources can bear particularly severe consequences from delay, detention, and inadequate process. Haymon’s public-defense career gives her extensive direct exposure to those asymmetries. Ghobadi has worked with vulnerable victims and emphasizes dignity and access. Neither background alone proves how each would distribute courtroom attention or protection.

3. Civil liberties and equal treatment. Haymon has regularly tested the government’s evidence and litigated defendants’ rights; Ghobadi has practiced in proceedings where protections for defendants and victims must coexist. Both are bound by constitutional and statutory rules. The reported contempt event raises a limited question about conflict management; it does not establish a future pattern of rulings against civil liberties.

4. Economic and material effects. Detention and criminal judgments can affect employment, housing, income, and family security; civil and family decisions can have immediate financial consequences. A fair, timely court helps limit avoidable material harm. No sound estimate differentiates the candidates on these effects.

5. Fiscal reality and opportunity cost. A single judicial office operates within the court’s existing budget. Neither candidate can independently promise countywide fiscal reform, and neither offers a testable savings projection for this position.

6. Institutional integrity and democratic accountability. The election gives voters a direct choice, while judicial ethics, disqualification rules, appellate procedures, and the Commission on Judicial Performance provide additional safeguards. The bar rating, reported contempt history, attributed assessments of demeanor, and disclosed endorsements are relevant but must retain their distinct evidentiary weights.

7. Evidence of effectiveness. Both candidates’ trial records show substantial practice, not judicial effectiveness. The 2026 LACBA evaluations offer a useful external qualification signal, but are individual, confidential ratings with known limitations. The Times’ transcript-based editorial and LA Forward’s described firsthand encounter add context on temperament but do not amount to a transparent, comprehensive professional-performance audit.

8. Implementation and administrative capacity. Ghobadi’s extensive preliminary-hearing and serious-crime work and Haymon’s long trial, teaching, and specialized defense experience may aid case preparation and management. The contested courtroom and professional-interaction accounts make temperament more salient but do not reveal either person’s performance managing a neutral judicial calendar.

9. Unintended consequences and behavioral response. Judicial campaigns organized around punishment, leniency, prosecution, or defense loyalties can create mistaken expectations about legal duties. Endorsements from law enforcement, defense advocates, or political groups should not be read as promises to rule for those interests. The same warning applies to the author’s personal preference for defense experience.

10. Reversibility, resilience and future lock-in. Appeals and other legal remedies can correct some errors, but they are costly and cannot undo all damage. A six-year term makes evidence of temperament and independence consequential. Neither candidate’s election changes the institutional safeguards themselves.

The strongest case for and against each candidate

The strongest case for Maria Ghobadi

Ghobadi’s experience includes 87 reported jury trials, 23 homicide trials, more than 1,500 preliminary hearings, and State Bar attorney-discipline prosecution. She received the higher current LACBA rating, Well Qualified. That assessment gains some contextual support from the independent reporting reviewed about professional demeanor and the concerns voiced by LA Forward, an organization that ordinarily places substantial value on public-defense backgrounds. Her campaign also publishes substantial support among judicial officers and legal practitioners, including some defense lawyers. These facts do not prove she will be a better judge, but collectively provide a modest evidentiary advantage in readiness and professional evaluation.

The strongest case against Maria Ghobadi

Her career has primarily involved prosecution, leaving voters without a judicial record showing how she would handle contested defense arguments, discretionary rulings, civil matters, or court administration. The LACBA rating has no public candidate-specific rationale and is not a head-to-head measurement; its evaluation process has drawn criticism. Many endorsements come from institutions that may share professional networks or policy priorities, and Judge Olson’s inclusion among her supporters is especially relevant context for readers considering the Haymon controversy. None of those endorsements independently predicts impartiality. Haymon’s longer practice, defense experience, and teaching deserve serious weight.

The strongest case for Rhonda A. Haymon

Haymon brings more than 25 years of defense work, over 100 reported jury trials, sustained representation of people confronting government power, and experience with constitutional procedure, police-accountability issues, diversion, and legal education. Her current Qualified LACBA rating recognizes baseline readiness, notwithstanding the process’s limitations. La Defensa’s 2026 evaluation relied on candidate responses and an endorsement interview and commends her approach to individualized bail, liberty, and equity. Knock LA’s 2026 general-election guide endorses her despite acknowledging criticism of her collaboration style. The case for Haymon is not merely ideological: her experience is directly relevant to due process, courtroom power disparities, and a judge’s responsibility to hear people who have less institutional influence.

The strongest case against Rhonda A. Haymon

In 2023, Judge Olson held Haymon in contempt. The Los Angeles Times editorial board later said it had examined the transcript, considered the order warranted, and reported that it was affirmed on appeal. LA Forward describes a separate negative firsthand experience with Haymon’s reaction to its 2024 endorsement decision, and Knock LA reports mixed assessments of her collaborative style. These are meaningful indications to examine when judging temperament; they are also limited by incomplete underlying documentation, uncertain overlap among informants, and the difference between advocacy and judging. Haymon disputes Olson’s conduct and says the State Bar did not discipline her. Her current LACBA rating is a level below Ghobadi’s, but the reason for the difference is not public. The evidence supports concern and moderate comparative weight, not a definitive finding of unfitness.

Campaign claims audit

Funding and interested parties

Both campaigns reported loans as well as contributions. The September 19-period Transparency USA snapshot showed greater receipts and expenditures for Ghobadi, but that does not demonstrate financial influence over future decisions. It excludes or may lag later finance activity, in-kind assistance, and independent spending. Updated official Form 460 filings and independent-expenditure disclosures should be checked before treating these as election-cycle totals; Los Angeles County describes how to access the records.

Ghobadi’s endorsements span judges, legal practitioners, law-enforcement associations, unions, and political organizations. Haymon’s support includes public-defense and criminal-justice reform organizations and community leaders. The priorities of endorsing institutions should be identified, not transferred automatically to the candidate as evidence of likely rulings. Olson’s endorsement of Ghobadi is a particularly relevant disclosed relationship because of the prior Haymon–Olson dispute; it does not itself imply coordination or improper influence.

No documented finance-related conflict establishing compromised judicial independence was identified in the sources reviewed. This does not mean no relevant late contribution, undisclosed relationship, or future recusal issue could arise. Applicable judicial ethics and disqualification rules, not the fact of ordinary campaign support alone, govern such questions.

What remains unknown

• The LACBA committee’s candidate-specific reasons for assigning Well Qualified to Ghobadi and Qualified to Haymon, and the extent to which either rating predicts impartial judicial performance.
• The complete 2023 contempt transcript, underlying order, appellate disposition and legal reasoning, and records substantiating the State Bar review described by Haymon. The Times’ reporting narrows uncertainty about the reported appellate outcome; it does not remove the need to verify the primary record.
• The original communications underlying LA Forward’s account of its 2024 interaction with Haymon and the sourcing of Knock LA’s criticism of collaboration, including whether the observations overlap.
• Independently standardized measures of each candidate’s trial work, case complexity, legal-error record, fair-process practices, and demonstrated professional judgment.
• Comparable experience in civil, family, juvenile, and probate adjudication, and actual performance as a neutral calendar-managing judge.
• Fully reconciled campaign finances, including post-September 19 receipts, loans, expenditures, in-kind support, and independent spending.
• How either candidate would perform once required to leave an advocate’s role and make impartial decisions from the bench.

The additional reporting makes the temperament question less evidentially empty than the first version suggested. It does not convert incomplete reports into a definitive professional finding. Those limits support moderate, not high, confidence.

What would change this analysis?

Direct review of the 2023 contempt record could materially change its evidentiary weight: the transcript might support or complicate the Times editorial board’s reading, and the appellate disposition could clarify what was actually decided. An authenticated State Bar communication could also clarify Haymon’s account of its review. None of these records should be presumed to establish misconduct or innocence before inspection.

Credible documentation that the LACBA’s 2026 evaluation treated either candidate unfairly, relied on inaccurate facts, or systematically discounted relevant defense work would reduce reliance on the rating difference. Conversely, candidate-specific findings corroborated by independent professional records would strengthen it. Independently verified, repeated conduct problems involving either candidate would matter more than a single disagreement or an endorsement.

The recommendation could move toward Haymon if stronger evidence of judgment, fair process, and administrative readiness outweighed the present external evaluations and concerns, or if material Ghobadi-specific problems emerged. Confidence in Ghobadi could increase if primary records and a transparent account of the peer evaluation independently supported the existing comparative assessment. Neither direction should be driven by the author’s personal preference or by the candidates’ institutional affiliations alone.

sherafy.com recommendation: Maria Ghobadi — moderate confidence

Maria Ghobadi remains the recommended candidate for Superior Court Office 64, with moderate confidence. Both candidates meet the formal qualifications and have substantial trial experience. Haymon offers longer practice, a higher reported jury-trial count, and valuable firsthand experience protecting people against the state. Ghobadi offers serious-crime trial experience, a large reported volume of preliminary hearings, attorney-discipline prosecution, and a higher current independent qualification rating.

The 2026 LACBA ratings supply a meaningful but limited signal: they involve professional investigation and relevant criteria, but they are not a candidate-by-candidate public rationale or a direct measure of likely judicial outcomes. The reported 2023 contempt finding and appellate affirmance, LA Forward’s own account, and Knock LA’s mixed assessments provide additional reasons to scrutinize Haymon’s temperament. They support some incremental weight for Ghobadi, but their limitations and Haymon’s contrary evidence rule out a categorical judgment.

The case for Haymon is legitimate, especially for voters who assign greater priority to public-defense experience, the distribution of institutional power, and constitutional safeguards. The Civic Outcomes Standard permits readers to weigh those goals differently while preserving the same factual record. It does not give either prosecutorial or defense employment an automatic advantage.

Taken together, Ghobadi holds a modest evidentiary edge in professional evaluation and reported indicators of judicial readiness. That is enough for a recommendation, but not enough for certainty about the kind of judge either candidate would become. The author’s separately disclosed inclination toward Haymon is a personal value judgment, not a reason to alter the institutional conclusion.

Evidence Ledger

References and Further Reading

• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: Official June 2026 Election Results. Official vote totals for Office 64; establishes the top-two primary outcome.
• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: Final List of Qualified Primary Candidates. Official candidate occupations and filing designations for the primary; not a standalone November runoff certification.
• California Courts: Judicial Selection. Describes Superior Court judicial elections, qualifications, and terms.
• California Courts: How Courts Work. Describes the jurisdiction and duties of the Superior Courts.
• California Code of Judicial Ethics. Primary judicial-ethics rules addressing integrity, impartiality, independence, competence, and judicial conduct.
• State Bar of California: Rhonda A. Haymon and Maria Lisa Ghobadi. Official license, admission, and publicly displayed discipline/administrative history; not a complete history of confidential matters.
• LACBA Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee: 2026 Ratings. Reproduces the association’s ratings and its description of its methods; does not independently validate the process.
• Los Angeles Times: October 2026 Guide to L.A. County Judicial Contests. Original reporting on candidate experience, stated priorities, LACBA ratings, and Haymon’s account of the Olson dispute.
• LAist: 2024 Investigation of Criticism of Judicial Evaluations. Documents criticisms and responses regarding LACBA’s process and the circumstances of Haymon’s 2024 evaluation.
• VOTE411: Office 64 Candidate Responses. Candidate-authored biographies, positions, and statements; these are claims by the candidates, not independently verified conclusions.
• Los Angeles County: Campaign Disclosure Information and Transparency USA: Office 64 Finance Summary. County access information for source campaign forms and period-limited third-party financial aggregates.
• California Commission on Judicial Performance. Explains the state body responsible for investigating and disciplining judicial officers.
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: February 2024 Judicial Endorsements. Reports a transcript-based assessment of Haymon’s 2023 contempt incident and states the order was upheld on appeal. This is the editorial board’s account, not an appellate record reproduced here.
• LAist: How LACBA Evaluates Judicial Candidates in 2026. Explains that the ratings are individualized, not head-to-head, and describes reference collection, interviews, and appeals.
• LA Forward: November 2026 Voter Guide. Gives the organization’s stated account of an interaction with Haymon and its resulting Ghobadi recommendation; a firsthand organizational claim, not a formal disciplinary finding.
• Knock LA: November 2026 Progressive Voter Guide. Endorses Haymon while reporting both praise and criticism of her professional interactions; provides a contrasting values-based evaluation.
• La Defensa: 2026 Judicial Candidate Voter Guide. Describes the organization’s candidate questionnaire, interview standards, and endorsement of Haymon; useful for understanding the defense-oriented case and its declared evaluative lens.
• Maria Ghobadi Campaign: Judicial and Organizational Endorsements and Rhonda Haymon Campaign: Endorsements. Campaign-controlled disclosures of supporters; useful for corroborating who is listed, not neutral assessments of performance.

Editorial currency and research limits

Research updated October 12, 2026. The County’s primary totals and candidate list establish the election context; 2026 LACBA ratings and October 1 Los Angeles Times reporting establish the core comparison. State Bar profiles were reviewed against the public-facing records available for this article. Campaign-finance amounts remain period-limited to the September 19 snapshot; they should not be presented as Election Day totals. New reporting from LA Forward, Knock LA, and La Defensa has been incorporated with explicit source attribution.

This is a desk-based editorial comparison, not legal advice, an independent attorney peer review, a verification of the underlying contempt transcript or appeal, or an audit of either candidate’s claimed trial statistics. The article’s recommendation reflects the evidence and public-interest criteria described in the Civic Outcomes Standard. Its author has separately disclosed a different personal preference.

Return to the Los Angeles County Voter Guide 2026.