Recommendation: Justin Allen Clayton, low confidence. Both candidates are active California lawyers, both were rated “Qualified” by the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and both have substantial public-defense experience. Clayton has the narrower but more directly current judicial-preparation advantage: he remains a courtroom practitioner while leading the Public Defender’s Inglewood branch, supervising attorneys and handling arraignments and preliminary hearings. Reitano’s substantial countercase is her broader work across juvenile and adult defense, civil litigation, and county legal advising. The edge is modest because neither has a judicial record and the bar rating does not distinguish them.
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
On November 3, 2026, Los Angeles County voters will choose one candidate for Superior Court Office 65, a nonpartisan countywide trial-court seat. The official Los Angeles County ballot listing names Justin Allen Clayton and Anna Slotky Reitano. They advanced from the June primary, where official county results recorded 614,230 votes (36.69%) for Clayton and 500,183 (29.88%) for Reitano, among four candidates. Neither won a majority, so the top two advanced to the general election under California’s judicial-election system.
The winner will serve a six-year term. This is a choice between two new judges, not a referendum on a policy or an incumbent’s record. Neither candidate has served as a judge, so voters cannot compare opinions, appellate reversals, courtroom calendars, or judicial discipline.
What this office can actually control
California Superior Courts are trial courts of general jurisdiction. Judges decide legal and evidentiary questions, manage proceedings, assess facts in bench trials, instruct juries, and issue orders in criminal and civil cases. Superior Court assignments may include family, juvenile, probate, traffic, and other matters; the court, not the candidate, controls assignment. A judge cannot set prosecution policy, fund treatment programs, rewrite sentencing statutes, or promise outcomes in individual cases.
California law requires a Superior Court judge to have been a California lawyer or judge for at least ten years before election or appointment. State Bar profile for Clayton shows admission June 6, 2012, and Reitano profile shows June 4, 2009; both are Active. The profile history tables display no discipline or administrative action for either, but the State Bar explains that some administrative suspensions may be removed from profiles. This is a check of the displayed public history, not proof that no complaint or nonpublic matter has ever existed.
Judges are bound by the California Code of Judicial Ethics, including duties of independence, integrity, impartiality, competence, and diligence. Decisions may be appealed, and the Commission on Judicial Performance investigates judicial misconduct and incapacity. Those safeguards do not erase the personal consequences of a wrongful ruling or delay.
The baseline and what happens under each alternative
The seat is open and will be filled by one of the two candidates. The court’s jurisdiction, assignment system, legal rules, staffing, and appellate process are unchanged whichever candidate wins. Both are nonpartisan candidates with extensive criminal-defense backgrounds, which makes this race different from the common prosecutor-versus-defender comparison.
Clayton has practiced as a Los Angeles County Deputy Public Defender since 2014 and has served as deputy in charge of the Inglewood branch since 2023. He describes himself as a “working supervisor”: he oversees and trains attorneys while continuing to handle arraignments, preliminary hearings, and other court appearances. His campaign reports dozens of trials, more than 1,000 adult matters, and hundreds of juvenile matters; these counts are not independently audited.
Reitano was admitted to the Bar in 2009 and joined the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office in 2014. Her decade there included three years in juvenile court, primarily felony matters, and five years at San Fernando Courthouse handling felony cases for indigent clients. She joined the County Counsel’s Justice and Safety Division in 2024, where she supervises civil litigation and advises County departments. Reporting and her campaign also describe earlier criminal-defense, contract, and other legal work. The broader range is relevant to a court with multiple kinds of cases, though the public record does not document her judicial performance or provide comparable courtroom-management measures.
What the evidence shows
Experience is a useful proxy, not a performance record
The Los Angeles Times’ October 1 candidate guide reports both candidates’ career histories, campaign priorities, and LACBA ratings. Clayton’s strongest professional evidence is the combination of continuing court appearances and branch leadership. Reitano’s is substantial defense work across adult and juvenile cases plus current supervision of civil litigation and government advice. The available sources do not provide standardized trial counts, case outcomes, or comparative measures of legal writing, temperament, timeliness, or client and colleague experience.
The LACBA Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee rated both candidates “Qualified.” Its 2026 announcement says it assesses professional ability, experience, competence, integrity, and temperament; it reports background reviews, candidate interviews, questionnaires to 50–75 people familiar with each candidate, and at least 25 telephone interviews. That is relevant peer-review evidence, but it is the association’s description of its own process. The actual candidate-specific reasoning is not public in the materials reviewed. Because the ratings are the same, they establish that both cleared the committee’s threshold; they do not establish that either is the stronger choice.
Their public judicial views overlap more than they differ
Both candidates describe fairness, preparation, access, and individualized decision-making as judicial priorities. In a questionnaire-based review, advocacy organization La Defensa endorsed Clayton and listed Reitano as recommended. It reports that both support considering ability to pay and individualized risk in pretrial detention, lawful diversion and treatment options, and attention to racial disparities and misconduct. La Defensa says it evaluated questionnaire responses and interviews and explains that its recommendations reflect a reform-oriented perspective. Its analysis is valuable evidence of what the candidates communicated, but it is an advocacy organization rather than a neutral qualifications body. Its descriptions are also not guarantees of how either candidate would rule; judges must decide cases on their records, governing law, and ethical obligations.
This overlap limits the usefulness of treating “reform” or “toughness” as a simple dividing line. A public defender background does not prove leniency or partiality. Nor does commitment to public safety establish that a judge will favor prosecutors. The more defensible distinction is professional fit: Clayton offers current, hands-on criminal courtroom work joined to branch management; Reitano offers a wider mix of legal fields and later civil-litigation supervision.
No public judicial or substantiated professional concern distinguishes them
Neither candidate has a judicial record to evaluate. The public State Bar pages read for this review show each as Active and display no discipline entry. No substantiated candidate-specific professional controversy, judicial reversal record, or public finding of misconduct was identified in the reviewed candidate reporting, official profiles, or campaign materials. That is a bounded search result, not a guarantee that no private complaint, unreported dispute, or inaccessible record exists.
Fiscal effects, distribution and opportunity cost
The judicial position is part of the existing court system, and the winner does not control the court’s budget. No credible candidate-specific, costed plan or evidence of a measurable fiscal difference was located. A judge’s decisions can still affect public spending indirectly through case duration, detention, sentencing, treatment referrals, and civil orders, but those effects depend on the case, legal standards, other agencies’ capacity, and systemwide policies. They cannot responsibly be converted into a candidate-level dollar forecast from this record.
Applying the ten Civic Outcomes lenses
-
Human welfare. A Superior Court judge’s decisions can affect liberty, safety, family integrity, housing, property, and access to remedies. Both candidates have worked with people facing serious criminal consequences; neither has a judicial outcome record that permits a comparative welfare estimate.
-
Distribution and inequality. Public-defense experience gives both candidates direct exposure to unequal resources, pretrial detention, and the consequences of criminal proceedings for families. Reitano adds juvenile-court and government-side civil experience; Clayton adds continuing local-court and branch-supervision work. No comparable outcome data show how either would translate that experience into fairer results.
-
Civil liberties and equal treatment. Both have publicly emphasized constitutional protections and individualized treatment. Their professional roles do not prove future neutrality. The code of ethics, due process, and case-specific findings govern; campaign statements cannot substitute for those duties.
-
Economic and material effects. Detention and court delay can threaten jobs, housing, caregiving, and legal costs. Clayton emphasizes preparation and deadlines; Reitano’s history includes defense and civil litigation supervision. Neither has documented judicial performance on calendar speed or case management.
-
Fiscal reality and opportunity cost. The seat carries the court’s existing costs. Indirect fiscal consequences of rulings are real but not quantified here, and neither candidate has authority to appropriate treatment or court resources.
-
Institutional integrity and democratic accountability. Voters select the judge; ethical rules, appellate review, recusal, and judicial discipline provide checks. The LACBA rating is a meaningful but nontransparent tie because candidate-specific reasoning is unavailable. Campaign endorsements show support coalitions, not proof of independence or qualification.
-
Evidence of effectiveness. The best available evidence consists of professional backgrounds, public candidate statements, and one peer-rating level. Neither candidate has judicial outcomes, published opinions, or standardized performance data. The record supports a limited preference, not a high-certainty prediction.
-
Implementation and administrative capacity. Clayton’s current branch leadership and continuing courtroom work provide direct evidence of legal-team supervision and day-to-day court exposure. Reitano’s current civil-litigation supervision shows another form of case oversight and cross-agency legal advice. Neither role is equivalent to managing an impartial judicial calendar.
-
Unintended consequences and behavioral response. Candidates’ public statements may create expectations among endorsers or voters, but a judge cannot properly commit to a result before hearing a case. Both must be evaluated on whether they can translate experience into impartial adjudication rather than reproduce an advocate’s role.
-
Reversibility, resilience and future lock-in. A six-year judicial term is consequential. Appeals can correct some legal errors, and discipline can address certain misconduct; neither mechanism can fully restore lost liberty, undo every family or financial harm, or recover time lost to delay. That favors selecting the candidate with the most relevant evidence of courtroom readiness while acknowledging the limits of the record.
The strongest case for and against each alternative
The strongest case for Clayton is the continuity between his current work and the central demands of a trial judge: he appears in court, handles criminal hearings, supervises the Inglewood public-defense branch, and trains lawyers. This joins advocacy experience with practical organizational leadership. His emphasis on preparation, deadlines, communication, and making sure unrepresented people are heard addresses recognizable courtroom needs. La Defensa’s endorsement provides an additional, explicitly reform-focused assessment of his candidate responses.
The strongest case against Clayton is that nearly all of his documented legal practice is criminal defense, while a Superior Court judge may be assigned across a broad docket. Reitano has a longer legal career and additional juvenile, civil-litigation, and county-advisory experience. His campaign’s trial and case counts are self-reported and do not measure quality, impartiality, or legal judgment. The equal Qualified ratings mean no peer-evaluation advantage supports him.
The strongest case for Reitano is that she brings over a decade in public defense plus juvenile felony work and current supervision of civil litigation and advice to County departments. Her career range may translate more readily across the Superior Court’s varied assignments. She has also received support from a broad coalition of judges, elected officials, community organizations, and newspaper groups, although endorsements are not substitutes for performance evidence. La Defensa considered her values-aligned and recommended her even while endorsing Clayton.
The strongest case against Reitano is not a substantiated concern about competence or ethics. It is that her current work since 2024 is in County Counsel, so the public record provides less evidence of recent, daily courtroom management than Clayton’s working-supervisor role. Her campaign describes her trial record in broad terms, but no comparable case-level or outcomes data are available. The bar rating is tied, and breadth across practice areas does not itself prove stronger judicial temperament or impartiality.
Campaign claims audit
| Claim and claimant | Underlying evidence | Finding | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clayton has more than a decade of practice and “dozens” of trials, including three life cases — campaign | State Bar admission date; campaign biography; LA Times profile | Supported as a reported career history | Counts are campaign-reported, not independently audited or quality measures. |
| Clayton is deputy in charge of the Inglewood public defender branch and remains a working courtroom supervisor — campaign and LA Times | Candidate biography and October 1 reporting | Supported by current reporting and campaign disclosure | No independent personnel record or management-performance assessment reviewed. |
| Reitano has experience across criminal, juvenile, civil, and government law — campaign and press reporting | State Bar admission, candidate bio, LA Times profile | Substantially supported as a career description | Civil and government work is more recent; no independent comparative effectiveness data. |
| Both are “Qualified” — LACBA and LAist | 2026 JEEC rating list | Verified | Same rating; confidential candidate-specific rationale not reviewed or public. |
| Clayton is a reform candidate and Reitano a balanced alternative — campaign/advocacy framing | Candidate statements and La Defensa’s questionnaire-based guide | Partly descriptive, partly advocacy framing | Their stated views overlap; labels should not predict a ruling or substitute for evidence of impartiality. |
| A candidate’s endorsers establish superior qualification | Campaign and organization endorsement lists | Unsupported as a qualification claim | Endorsements identify support; they do not independently prove legal competence or future judicial performance. |
Funding and interested parties
The campaigns disclose their committee identifiers on their websites: Clayton for Judge 2026, FPPC No. 1489455, and Anna Slotky Reitano for Judge 2026, FPPC No. 1487582. La Defensa reports that both candidates said they do not accept law-enforcement or police-association money; its guide also reports Reitano said she did not plan to seek PAC money. These are attributed campaign statements, not a complete reconciliation of all filings.
An October 2026 campaign-finance digest lists a $10,000 late contribution from Reitano to her own committee. The contribution is relevant as self-financing context, not evidence of improper influence. The underlying current Form 460, Form 497, and independent-expenditure record for both candidates was not fully reconciled for this article. The County campaign-disclosure page says its services are transitioning and directs readers to its online archive and NetFile. Figures and outside spending should be refreshed from the filed statements before publication.
What remains unknown
- Neither candidate has a judicial record, so there are no comparable decisions, reversals, assignment-level evaluations, or judicial calendar results.
- Candidate-reported trial and matter counts are not standardized and were not checked against complete case dockets.
- LACBA has not published candidate-specific reasoning in the reviewed materials; both candidates received the same rating.
- Public campaign statements do not establish how either would decide a close evidentiary, bail, sentencing, juvenile, civil, or family-law question.
- Campaign-finance totals and outside spending were not reconciled from the latest raw filings for both committees.
- California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1(a)(2) requires disqualification for specified prior legal work on the same proceeding or related issues, including certain personal representation of a public agency. Prior County or Public Defender employment alone is not a blanket conflict. No specific pending conflict was substantiated in the reviewed record.
These gaps prevent high confidence. They do not make the ballot facts or the candidates’ broad professional histories indeterminate; the best-supported choice turns on the comparative relevance of their current work.
What would change this analysis?
A public candidate-specific LACBA rationale that identifies a material difference in ability, integrity, or temperament could change the comparison. So could verified, comparable evidence of courtroom management, written legal analysis, or substantiated professional conduct that is absent from the reviewed materials. A material correction to either candidate’s role or State Bar status would require an immediate reassessment.
The recommendation would weaken if Clayton’s branch-management role proved largely administrative rather than involving current hearings and supervision, or if comparable evidence showed Reitano’s recent litigation supervision and courtroom work are more directly relevant to judicial duties than the reporting currently establishes. Evidence of a serious, substantiated ethical or professional issue would also change the analysis, regardless of endorsements or practice background.
sherafy.com recommendation: Justin Allen Clayton — low confidence
The recommendation is a narrow judgment about present-day fit for a trial bench, not a claim that Clayton is inherently more impartial or that defense lawyers make better judges. His current work combines recurring courtroom exposure with responsibility for supervising and training lawyers in a branch office. Those experiences map directly to preparing hearings, managing courtroom interactions, communicating with court personnel, and keeping proceedings fair and orderly. Those are the most concrete, current indicators in this record of readiness for the day-to-day work of a trial judge.
Reitano presents a serious alternative. She has three more years of Bar seniority, more than a decade of public-defense work, substantial juvenile experience, and a broader current portfolio in civil litigation and County advising. For a court with varied assignments, that range could be more useful than a largely criminal docket. The available evidence does not show that this wider experience has translated into better judicial performance, and her current role is less direct evidence of daily courtroom management than Clayton’s.
Both candidates are Active and rated Qualified. That establishes a credible threshold for each, not a comparative winner. The campaigns and advocacy review show overlapping commitments to fair process and individualized decisions; those stated views should not be treated as future case outcomes. With no judicial record, outcome data, or public candidate-specific peer rationale, the evidence supports only a low-confidence choice. The decisive value is the immediate connection between Clayton’s current, hands-on courtroom supervision and the core operational demands of a trial court.
The burden here is not to predict that one candidate will produce a particular sentencing or bail result. It is to choose between two qualified lawyers on the evidence available, while giving greater weight to current work that resembles the bench’s daily responsibilities. Reitano’s breadth could reasonably lead another voter to choose her; that strong countercase is why this recommendation remains low confidence and should be revisited if better comparative evidence emerges.
Evidence Ledger
| Material question | Finding | Evidence type and source | Confidence | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office 65 roster and primary advancement | Clayton and Reitano are listed on the November ballot; they placed first and second in June | Official LAVote ballot and results | High | Reconfirm final ballot and certified status before release. |
| Legal eligibility and Bar status | Both are Active; admitted in 2012 and 2009, respectively | Official State Bar profiles | High | Public profile history is not a record of confidential complaints; removable administrative matters may be absent. |
| Practice and supervision | Both have substantial public-defense backgrounds; Clayton remains a working branch supervisor, Reitano supervises civil litigation/advises County departments | Candidate materials and LA Times reporting | Moderate | Role descriptions are reported; no comparable personnel/performance records. |
| Professional ratings | Both were rated Qualified by LACBA | LACBA 2026 rating release / LAist | High as to the rating | Candidate-specific reasons are not public. |
| Judicial outcomes | No candidate has a judicial record | Public career descriptions and ballot status | High | Search does not establish absence of private or unreported matters. |
| Funding and interests | Reitano’s campaign received a reported $10,000 self-contribution; a full current comparison was not reconciled | Campaign-finance digest; county filing guidance | Moderate for reported late item; low for comparative completeness | Underlying filing and all late/outside reports need direct pre-release review. |
| Recommendation | Clayton, low confidence | Editorial judgment based on present court exposure plus branch supervision | Low | Reitano’s broader practice and equal Qualified rating make the choice close. |
References and Further Reading
- Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: Office 65 ballot listing. Official November ballot names and contest designation.
- Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: June 2, 2026 results. Official countywide primary vote totals for Office 65.
- California Courts: Judicial selection and terms. Judicial qualifications, appointment/election path, and six-year terms.
- State Bar profile: Justin Allen Clayton. License status, admission date, and displayed public history.
- State Bar profile: Anna RS Reitano (aka Anna Slotky). License status, admission date, and displayed public history.
- LACBA 2026 judicial ratings announcement. LACBA’s rating and description of its evaluation method, republished by a press-release distributor; candidate-specific reasoning is unavailable.
- LAist: 2026 Los Angeles County Superior Court judicial races. Candidate roster, rating links, and voter context.
- Los Angeles Times: 2026 Los Angeles County Superior Court judge guide. Career histories, stated priorities, and candidate explanations; trial counts remain candidate-reported.
- La Defensa: 2026 judicial voter guide. Questionnaire and interview process, candidate positions, and endorsement/recommendation; advocacy perspective disclosed.
- Clayton campaign biography and endorsements and endorsement page. Candidate-provided claims and endorsements.
- Reitano campaign biography and endorsements. Candidate-provided claims and endorsements.
- Los Angeles County campaign disclosure information. Explains current archive/NetFile transition and report types.
- The Ballot Book daily campaign-finance report. Secondary filing digest; reported Reitano’s $10,000 self-contribution in an October 2026 late-contribution listing. Review the underlying report before release.
- California Code of Judicial Ethics and Commission on Judicial Performance. Judicial obligations and misconduct oversight.
- California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. Disqualification rules concerning prior legal work; the Legislature site returned a 403 during access, so the cited text was read from a secondary codification.
Editorial currency and research limits
Research currency: October 11, 2026. Ballot names and June results were checked against county records; candidate status and displayed Bar histories were checked against State Bar profiles; candidate backgrounds and 2026 statements were checked against current reporting and campaign/advocacy materials. This is a source/recommendation self-review, not independent expert or legal review. Before release, recheck the final ballot, current Bar status, complete late campaign-finance filings and independent expenditures, and any public candidate-specific LACBA rationale or substantiated professional record.
Return to the Los Angeles County Voter Guide 2026.
