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

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.

Update — October 21, 2026: A reader with an interest in this race submitted a trial-event spreadsheet and forwarded email correspondence describing communications with the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Temporary Judge Program, including a response displaying an @lacourt.ca.gov sender address. That response reports 44 completed temporary-judge assignments; the spreadsheet supports Tryfman’s jury activity in 2024. We have updated the service count, trial chronology and related analysis, with the source and counting limits explained below. We evaluate all challenges objectively under our Civic Outcomes Standard, regardless of who submits them. Our recommendation remains Donna Tryfman at low confidence. The October 14 update is retained below as the record of our earlier review; its unresolved approximate-count discussion is superseded by this new evidence.

Update — October 14, 2026: A reader challenged Ross’s trial count and recent activity, Tryfman’s court service, and Ross’s police-association support. We reviewed supplied County public-records response screenshots, independently confirmed Tryfman’s current mediator listing, verified the restriction on APD deputies’ private practice, and found contemporaneous reporting of her 2022 jury work. The County report lists 89 APD trial entries, with the latest dated in 2019; that count can reconcile Ross’s newer career total rather than show inflation. Tryfman’s exact pro-tem count remains unverified. Applying our Civic Outcomes Standard to relevant judicial preparation, fair procedure and administrative capacity, we now recommend Donna Tryfman at low confidence, replacing our previous no-candidate recommendation. The evidence and qualifications are explained below.

Sherafy recommends Donna Tryfman for Los Angeles County Superior Court Office 131, at low confidence. Her more recently documented jury work, court-confirmed mediator listing, pro-tem service supported by forwarded Court correspondence and branch leadership collectively provide a modest advantage in preparation for the bench. Ross remains a credible, experienced alternative with extensive trials and hearings, writing and appellate experience, pro-tem service and favorable judicial testimonials. Both received LACBA’s Qualified rating. The recommendation is an editorial judgment about preparation; it does not establish that Tryfman has superior measured judicial performance or that Ross is unqualified.

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

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

What the choice actually is

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

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

What this office can actually control

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

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

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

The baseline and the two candidates

Neither candidate currently holds this elected judgeship. Voters are selecting a new judge who will serve a six-year term under the same judicial ethics rules, appellate system and Commission on Judicial Performance jurisdiction. Those safeguards address qualifying legal error and misconduct; they do not guarantee temperament or replace the comparison voters must make.

Donna Tryfman. Tryfman joined the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office in 1998. Her candidate materials and public reporting describe more than 100 jury trials and current Major Cases Unit work on capital-homicide litigation. She led the Eastlake Juvenile Court branch from 2016 to 2019; the Times reports a 15-lawyer branch, while her October questionnaire says approximately 25 attorneys. The difference is unresolved, but both accounts support supervisory responsibility. Public reporting also describes collaborative drug-court work and professional-association leadership. Los Angeles Times candidate profiles · Tryfman’s October questionnaire

Her signed April questionnaire reports a 2018 pro-tem appointment and approximately 40 sittings in traffic, small-claims and unlawful-detainer matters. A reader with an interest in this race subsequently forwarded email correspondence to Sherafy describing an exchange with the Court’s Temporary Judge Program. The displayed October 20 response from an @lacourt.ca.gov address states: “We are showing that you have completed 44 assignments.” We use 44 completed assignments as the count reported in that forwarded correspondence, superseding the earlier approximate figures. Sherafy did not receive the message directly from the Court or independently authenticate its original headers. The response supplies no assignment dates, duration, case totals or performance evaluations. Independently, the Court’s live Mediation Volunteer Panel directory lists Tryfman. Her profile reports 25 hours of Court-connected mediation training in September 2025 and MVP mediation experience in March 2026; the Court cautions that profile details are mediator supplied and not independently verified. This confirms her current inclusion, not an exact appointment date, completed-mediation count or performance evaluation. Additional source: reader-forwarded Temporary Judge Program correspondence, October 20, 2026. Signed April questionnaire · Court’s individual MVP profile

David Ross. Ross was admitted to the California bar in 1994, joined Riverside County’s Public Defender’s Office in 1995 and joined LA County’s Alternate Public Defender in 2000. His campaign biography reports 113 career jury trials: 27 in Riverside and 86 at LA APD. An October questionnaire gives 116 career trials, more than 2,000 contested preliminary hearings and more than 10,000 clients. These remain candidate-reported career totals. The newly supplied County report contains 89 APD jury-trial entries, including retrials, with the latest listed date October 16, 2019. Adding 89 to his reported 27 Riverside trials produces 116 if the categories match. The report therefore supports substantial experience and can reconcile the newer total; it does not substantiate an inflated-count allegation. Ross campaign biography · October questionnaire

Ross’s biography describes small-claims and limited-civil pro-tem service in 2003–04; his October questionnaire reports service in several county courts without a total or full timeline. His earlier Riverside work included writs, appeals and drug-court matters, and he taught legal writing and research at Western State from 2002 to 2006. His campaign hosts favorable named judicial testimonials about his preparation, professionalism and temperament. These are relevant professional opinions, published by a campaign with an interest in selecting favorable accounts. La Defensa’s candidate profile · Ross’s campaign and judicial testimonials

Professional ratings and standing. LACBA rated both candidates Qualified, according to LAist’s current guide. The process considers questionnaires, interviews and professional references, but its candidate-specific reasoning is not publicly provided. Equal ratings establish a shared professional signal, not equal experience in every task. State Bar profiles checked October 14 show both Active, with admission dates December 12, 1994 for Ross and June 12, 1995 for Tryfman, and no displayed disciplinary entry. The profiles are not complete confidential complaint files, and the Bar explains that some administrative actions may be removed. LAist ratings and methodology · Ross State Bar profile · Tryfman State Bar profile

Neither candidate has an elected-judge opinion record that allows a common review of reasoning, reversals, calendar management or recusal decisions. Pro-tem service, training, litigation experience and professional testimonials provide evidence of preparation; they do not supply a matched performance evaluation.

What the evidence shows

Both candidates have substantial criminal-defense experience. The useful distinction is how their documented work prepares them for current judicial responsibilities. A judge must manage evidence, hear parties fairly, explain decisions, organize a calendar and apply law impartially across assignments that may extend beyond criminal cases. Trial volume is relevant exposure, but it is not a quality score.

Ross’s APD jury-trial record: count, recency and limits

A reader supplied screenshots of a September 3, 2026 County Counsel response to a California Public Records Act request, together with an APD report titled “Jury Trials Search,” generated August 20, 2026. The visible report contains rows numbered 1 through 89 and a total of 89. Some repeated case numbers are marked as retrials, so this is a count of trial entries rather than 89 distinct defendants or cases. Its latest listed date is October 16, 2019; no later jury-trial entry appears in the supplied report.

This is stronger evidence of Ross’s recorded APD jury-trial history than a campaign biography alone. It supports describing a roughly seven-year interval between his latest listed trial and the November 2026 election. It does not establish that he stopped practicing law, appearing in court, preparing cases or litigating hearings and motions. A jury-trial record also does not measure bench trials or every other form of litigation.

The County’s cover letter expressly declines to attest to accuracy or completeness and says some information was withheld or redacted. The screenshots do not provide a full data dictionary explaining whether the date means trial commencement or completion, or how every trial status is counted. Sherafy reviewed the supplied screenshots rather than independently obtaining the original agency PDF. We have no affirmative evidence of a missing later trial; the appropriate finding is that the supplied County report records none after October 16, 2019, with these disclosed limits. The report covers records generated August 20, not a certification of events through Election Day. Source: County Counsel response, September 3, 2026, and accompanying APD report, August 20, 2026, screenshot copies supplied by a reader. County APD public-records contact and statistics request information

The count does not demonstrate that Ross overstated his career total. His biography’s 86 LA APD plus 27 Riverside produces 113; the supplied APD figure of 89 plus the same reported Riverside figure produces his October total of 116. Matching categories and the Riverside count remain unverified. The three-entry discrepancy between the older biography and the County report needs clarification, but neither the arithmetic nor this record establishes deception or shows that the additional entries occurred after 2019.

Outside private practice is restricted

County Charter section 55 prohibits the Public Defender and deputies from private law practice. County Code section 2.11.020 connects the APD’s service to the Public Defender’s. In a September 10, 2026 opinion involving another attorney, the Court of Appeal expressly rejected the argument that deputy APDs escape the prohibition. The opinion is unpublished and is not binding precedent in other litigation; it is a directly relevant application of the existing county and state provisions. County Charter, section 55, printed p.44 · Official Lettini opinion, B350508, pp.3 and 8–9

Consequently, private jury trials elsewhere during Ross’s county employment are not a lawful alternative explanation that this analysis should assume. This corrects our earlier suggestion that unspecified private work might fill the apparent gap. The restriction concerns the capacity in which an attorney represents clients; it does not bar official APD work in another courthouse or equate pro-tem judging or mediation with representing private clients. Nor does the rule establish database completeness. Nothing in these records establishes that Ross engaged in prohibited outside practice.

Tryfman’s more recently documented trial and neutral work

Contemporaneous City News Service reporting identifies Tryfman delivering the defense closing argument in a murder retrial that reached a verdict in August 2022. That is an independently reported example of jury work after Ross’s latest recorded APD trial. It is one proceeding, not Tryfman’s latest-trial date or a complete annual activity record. The verdict itself is not a measure of counsel’s quality. A separate September 2026 report quotes her as counsel in a matter following a preliminary hearing; it supports recent representation, not a verified count of hearings she personally conducted. City News Service, September 29, 2022 · Open September 2026 reporting

The reader also submitted a workbook titled “Jury Trials – Donna,” displaying an October 8, 2026 report date. Its 56 event rows cover 13 distinct case numbers; three pairs repeat the same case number, date and subject. It filters cases by filing date from January 1, 2019 and an assigned-to name containing Donna Tryfman, rather than counting completed trials conducted since 2019. Repeated trial dates and deliberation entries can belong to one case. No verdict, disposition or event-level trial-attorney field appears, and the assignment filter alone does not identify who handled each event. Sherafy reviewed the submitted workbook and did not obtain it directly from the reporting agency. Source: reader-submitted workbook, filter cells B8–B10, headings D12–J12 and event rows 13–71, reviewed October 21.

The newer sequences include trial-in-progress entries in April 2024, trial-in-progress and deliberation entries in June 2024, and another sequence ending with deliberations on November 20, 2024. They support Tryfman’s account of jury activity in 2024 and expand the earlier independently reported 2022 example. Bare “JURY TRIAL” labels also appear in January 2025 and two identical June 2, 2026 rows. Without clarification of event meanings and counsel participation, we do not count those as completed trials or declare 2024 her definitive last-trial year. The separate “Next Court Date” column describes scheduling, not completed work. Workbook locators: H64:I71, H33:I43, H44:I52, H18:I20 and H14:I15.

Her Court-confirmed MVP listing adds current preparation for a neutral role in civil disputes. The forwarded program statement reporting 44 completed temporary-judge assignments and her branch-management background add judicial and supervisory exposure. These are interested-party submissions evaluated on their contents, provenance and relevance, using the same standard applied to other challenges. Dates and duration of the assignments, completed mediation volume and the quality of these activities remain unestablished. The live profile resolves our earlier access failure; an older directory’s omission cannot override the current listing. Court profile · MVP program

Ross’s appellate and writ work, legal-writing teaching and communication experience remain relevant strengths. Named judicial testimonials on his site praise his preparation and treatment of participants. There is no common review of the candidates’ actual briefs, pro-tem decisions, evaluations or calendar outcomes. The resulting preference for Tryfman is modest: the combination of more recently documented jury work and current neutral-service preparation adds to her reported judicial and managerial background. It is an editorial inference about readiness, not proof of superior performance.

Fiscal effects, distribution and opportunity cost

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

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

Applying the ten Civic Outcomes lenses

1. Human welfare. Judicial decisions affect detention, families, safety and the burdens of litigation. Both public-defense careers are relevant. The new records improve the comparison of preparation, but do not measure which candidate would produce better welfare outcomes.
2. Distribution and inequality. Both have represented people unable to afford private counsel. Ross’s publicly described attention to transportation, childcare and court-access barriers is a meaningful strength; Tryfman’s juvenile and collaborative-court work provides related experience. No comparative distributional outcomes were established.
3. Civil liberties and equal treatment. Serious criminal litigation requires attention to evidence and constitutional procedure. Tryfman’s independently reported 2022 jury work, supplied 2024 trial-event sequences and neutral-service preparation support her readiness case. Prior defense advocacy and mediation credentials do not prove impartial judging or superior due-process outcomes.
4. Economic and material effects. Court decisions can affect housing, employment and household costs. Tryfman’s reported small-claims/unlawful-detainer pro-tem work and civil mediation preparation add relevant exposure; Ross’s reported limited-civil pro-tem service also matters. No comparative economic effect is forecast.
5. Fiscal reality and opportunity cost. Neither candidate independently controls court appropriations. No evidence supports a comparative estimate of jail, court or litigation savings. Campaign-finance review remains incomplete; fundraising totals are not used as a proxy for judicial competence.
6. Institutional integrity and democratic accountability. Correct attribution of trial counts and legal restrictions matters. The County record can reconcile Ross’s newer total and supplies no ethics finding against him. Both have Active Bar status and the same published LACBA rating. An endorsement alone does not establish influence or a broken contribution pledge.
7. Evidence of effectiveness. The supplied administrative report, independently located trial reporting and live Court directory are stronger factual support than an unprovided challenge summary. They remain descriptive preparation evidence. No matched evaluations or representative rulings establish superior judicial performance.
8. Implementation and administrative capacity. Tryfman’s branch leadership, pro-tem service supported by the forwarded 44-assignment statement and current mediation preparation collectively support a modest advantage in preparation for courtroom administration and neutral decision-making. The disputed Eastlake staffing number is not decisive. Ross’s substantial hearings, writing and earlier appellate work support a credible alternative.
9. Unintended consequences and behavioral response. A preference based on experience should not punish appropriate settlement or pretrial advocacy, or encourage an assumption that more trials mean better lawyering. The jury-trial gap does not establish that Ross was inactive or unable to handle cases. No comparative evidence measures either candidate’s effect on trust, compliance or appeals.
10. Reversibility, resilience and future lock-in. A six-year judicial term gives the winner consequential authority. Appellate and disciplinary safeguards cannot fully reverse every loss of liberty, delay or expense. This warrants careful evidence and low confidence in a narrow preparation preference; it does not justify declaring either candidate unqualified on the available record.

The strongest case for and against each candidate

The strongest case for Tryfman is the combination of substantial serious-felony practice, an independently reported 2022 jury proceeding, supplied trial-in-progress and deliberation sequences in 2024, pro-tem service dated by her signed questionnaire to 2018 onward and now supported by forwarded Court correspondence reporting 44 completed assignments, branch leadership, and current Court-confirmed mediator inclusion. These are relevant forms of preparation for evidence handling, courtroom management and neutral decision-making. Assignment dates and duration, completed mediation volume and performance are not established. The preference rests on the combination, not an assumption that a panel listing or an assignment count guarantees good judging.

The strongest case for Ross is a long defense career with extensive trial and preliminary-hearing experience, writs and appeals, legal-writing teaching, reported pro-tem service, and named favorable judicial testimonials. The supplied 89-entry APD record reinforces that breadth and can reconcile his 116 career total with the reported Riverside component. His public account of access barriers and clear communication addresses real judicial tasks. Both candidates’ equal Qualified rating is a reason to take his candidacy seriously.

The strongest case against Tryfman is uncertainty about comparative judicial performance. The 44-assignment statement and newer trial-event sequences strengthen the evidence of relevant experience, but do not establish sounder reasoning, better temperament or more judicial service than Ross. Eastlake results remain unverified, and the public record provides less detail about her appellate writing. The workbook supplies a broader recent activity record, with counting and attribution limits, rather than a certified completed-trial history. These limits and Ross’s credible strengths keep the comparative preference tentative; the lack of an original email alone does not determine the confidence label.

The strongest case against Ross is the less current and less specific documented preparation record. His latest jury-trial date in the supplied August 2026 APD report is October 2019, while Tryfman has an independently reported later jury proceeding and current neutral-service preparation. His fuller pro-tem timeline, recent hearing activity and current assignment would help contextualize that gap. The record does not establish incompetence, inactivity in all legal work or inflated totals. A voter who gives greater weight to his writing, hearings and communication record could reasonably prefer him.

Campaign claims audit

Funding and interested parties

Both campaigns have registered committees. Ross’s campaign identifies Committee to Elect David Ross, FPPC ID 1485476; Tryfman’s site identifies Donna Tryfman for Judge 2026, FPPC ID 1487797. Ross’s campaign website lists support from labor organizations, including ILWU Local 65, the Los Angeles Port Police Association, as well as Democratic clubs, individual elected officials, lawyers and judges. Tryfman’s site lists judicial, bar, labor, political and community endorsements. La Defensa reports that Ross told its vetting process he had not accepted law-enforcement contributions and would not accept corporate or PAC donations; this is a candidate statement relayed by an advocacy group, not a reconciled finding from filings. I found no public statement that Ross would refuse law-enforcement endorsements. The Port Police Association endorsement is evidence of support, not a contribution, so it does not by itself contradict his reported donation statement.

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

What remains unknown

• The original County PDF, complete report headers/filter conditions, meaning of the date field, counting conventions and source of database entries were not independently obtained. The supplied screenshots establish the visible 89-entry report and latest listed date, with the County’s completeness caveat.
• No matched trial or hearing dataset covers both candidates under common counting rules. The 27 Riverside component and Tryfman’s 100-plus lifetime total remain reported rather than independently audited.
• Ross’s full recent assignment, hearing/motion activity and pro-tem timeline could change how voters interpret the jury-trial gap. No later jury-trial record was located; unspecified private practice is not a lawful explanation to assume during APD employment.
• Forwarded Court correspondence supplies a 44-assignment count, but not an independently received original message or a log of dates, types and duration. Her confirmed MVP listing does not establish completed mediation totals or results. The supplied trial workbook lacks dispositions and event-level counsel certification, and the meaning of its bare 2025/2026 trial labels remains unresolved.
• The Times’ 15-lawyer Eastlake figure and the questionnaire’s approximately 25 remain unreconciled. Supervisory responsibility is supported; no operational outcome measure was established.
• No common set of complete professional evaluations, representative judicial rulings or systematic courtroom observations compares their reasoning, temperament, impartiality and management.
• Public Bar profiles do not reveal complete confidential disciplinary or workplace records. No sustained misconduct pattern was established in the sources reviewed.
• Campaign-finance Forms 460/497/496, loans, transfers and independent expenditures were not fully reconciled; no donor-based finding is made.

These limits affect confidence rather than erase the evidence already obtained. The reasonable comparison now gives Tryfman a modest preparation advantage, while leaving significant uncertainty about actual future judicial performance.

What would change this analysis?

The forwarded 44-assignment statement and supplied 2024 trial-event sequences strengthen the preparation case and address part of the evidence gap identified in our earlier review. They prompted reconsideration of the confidence label; they do not alone establish a more secure comparative advantage. A dated assignment log, representative legal work, credible evaluations or detailed observations of reasoning, fair treatment and calendar management could strengthen, weaken or reverse the preference. Publicly available evidence can inform that judgment; no particular confidential record, paid court file or proof of future judging is required.

A fuller Ross pro-tem timeline, a later jury-trial entry, an explanation of the APD data fields and current assignment, or a clarified Tryfman event report with counsel and disposition information would also change the weight given to activity and recency. Mediation activity records or verified branch results could strengthen or weaken the recommendation depending on what they show. Better evidence matters for either candidate; volume alone is not a judicial-quality measure.

A substantiated ethics finding, material discipline, repeated serious courtroom misconduct or reliable evidence of unfair treatment would carry substantial weight under the judicial standard. A revised LACBA rating with a disclosed candidate-specific rationale could also change the comparison. A complete finance review showing material undisclosed support would require an independence update; a donation or endorsement alone would not prove bias.

sherafy.com recommendation: Donna Tryfman — low confidence

We recommend Donna Tryfman at low confidence. The decisive consideration is the combined record of relevant preparation: more recently supported jury activity, pro-tem service since 2018 now supplemented by forwarded Court correspondence reporting 44 completed assignments, current Court-confirmed mediator inclusion and substantial branch-management responsibility. These forms of experience relate to evidence handling, fair procedure, neutral decisions and courtroom administration. We give that combination modestly more weight than Ross’s substantial but less current and less specifically dated documented record.

The new evidence strengthens the factual basis. The supplied County report lists 89 Ross APD trial entries with the latest dated October 16, 2019. County law restricts outside private practice by APD deputies, so hypothetical private jury trials elsewhere are not a lawful gap-filling assumption. Independent reporting documents Tryfman’s jury advocacy in 2022; the additional workbook supports trial activity extending into 2024, including deliberations in November. The forwarded program response replaces approximate pro-tem counts with its stated count of 44 completed assignments. These are meaningful additions, even with disclosed provenance and counting limits. They do not establish a completed-trial total or a definitive last-trial date for her.

The strongest counterargument is Ross’s extensive experience and credible preparation for other central judicial tasks. The supplied APD count can reconcile his newer 116 career total with his reported 27 Riverside trials, rather than demonstrate exaggeration. His hearings, writs, appeals, teaching, communication background, pro-tem work and named judicial testimonials remain persuasive. Both candidates have the same Qualified rating and Active licenses. The jury-trial gap does not establish that he ceased legal work or cannot judge competently, and we make no finding of dishonesty or improper influence.

Under the Civic Outcomes Standard, confidence remains low because this is a tentative comparison of relevant but different preparation. The new records strengthen Tryfman’s experience account, while Ross’s hearings, writing, teaching and professional testimonials remain substantial contrary evidence. The supplied activity and assignment records do not compare how either candidate exercised judgment, treated parties or managed a calendar. Report definitions, current Ross duties and comparable pro-tem records remain limited. Even accepting the new evidence, the preference remains sensitive to the weight given to these competing strengths. More informative work samples or credible comparative observations could support moderate confidence or change the choice.

Evidence Ledger

References and Further Reading

• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, November 3, 2026 Ballot Marking Device Code List. Current official directory used to verify the general-election contest and candidates.
• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, June 2, 2026 Semifinal/Official Canvass Statement of Votes Cast. Official county primary results; Office 131 appears in the contest canvass. The final certified canvass was published June 26.
• Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Final List of Qualified Candidates to Appear on the Ballot. Official filing report identifying candidate names, ballot designations and contest; it records the primary ballot roster, while the November roster is verified separately above.
• California Constitution, Article VI, sections 15–17. Qualifications, election and term rules for Superior Court judges.
• California Courts, Superior Courts. Judicial branch description of Superior Court jurisdiction and place in the California court system.
• California Code of Judicial Ethics. Supreme Court-adopted standards governing judicial conduct and campaign activity; candidates must not promise outcomes in likely cases or knowingly misstate qualifications.
• David Arthur Ross, California State Bar profile. Shows Active status, admission date and public discipline/administrative history, subject to the Bar’s profile limits.
• Donna Tryfman, California State Bar profile. Shows Active status, admission date and public discipline/administrative history, subject to the Bar’s profile limits.
• LAist, 2026 Los Angeles County Superior Court judicial candidate guide. Confirms both candidates’ LACBA ratings and explains the bar association’s process and its limits.
• Los Angeles Times, Office 131 profiles, October 1, 2026. Independent candidate reporting on trial work, leadership, pro-tem service and professional background; candidate-reported counts were not independently audited.
• ArcaMax open republication of a September 18 Los Angeles Times report. Quotes Tryfman as counsel in a case following a four-day preliminary hearing; this is one recent reported pretrial matter, not proof she conducted the hearing or an aggregate activity record.
• Donna Tryfman, signed West LA Democratic Club questionnaire, April 22, 2026. Candidate-reported appointment as judge pro tem in 2018, approximately 40 sittings, 2025 MVP appointment, 100-plus jury trials and current Major Cases Unit assignment; not an official service or performance log.
• South Bay Tide, Tryfman candidate questionnaire, October 7, 2026. Publishes her answer that she supervised approximately 25 Eastlake attorneys from 2016 to 2019; this differs from the 15-lawyer figure in the Los Angeles Times and is not an independently audited staffing count.
• Pasadena Ledger, David Ross candidate questionnaire, October 6, 2026. Reports Ross’s questionnaire totals of 116 career jury trials, 2,000-plus contested preliminary hearings and pro-tem service in several Los Angeles County courts; candidate-reported and not audited.
• La Defensa, 2026 candidate guide, Office 131. Advocacy organization’s questionnaire and interview-based profile of Ross; useful for candidate responses and access-to-justice framing, not an independent prediction of judicial decisions.
• Donna Tryfman campaign website. Candidate biography, campaign statements and endorsements; self-published material.
• David Ross campaign website. Candidate biography, campaign statements, endorsements and committee identification; self-published material.
• Donna Tryfman campaign statement, Mediation Volunteer Panel appointment. Campaign statement says she was appointed in 2025 and completed the Court’s training; it does not establish actual mediation volume or outcomes.
• Los Angeles Superior Court Mediation Volunteer Panel. Official program page describing eligible cases and the volunteer mediator function.
• Los Angeles Superior Court, Donna Tryfman MVP profile. Current individual listing independently confirmed October 14; training and experience fields are mediator supplied and subject to the Court’s disclaimer.
• David Ross campaign biography. Candidate-reported division of 113 career jury trials into 86 at LA APD and 27 in Riverside, and pro-tem service in 2003–04.
• Los Angeles County, Public Records Request Contacts. Lists the Alternate Public Defender’s administrative contact and statistics as an example of requestable records; this is a request channel, not a public copy of the supplied response.
• Los Angeles County campaign disclosure information. Entry point for campaign disclosure records; a complete candidate-to-candidate filing reconciliation was not completed.
• County Counsel CPRA response, September 3, 2026, and accompanying APD Jury Trials Search, August 20, 2026. Screenshot copies supplied by a reader and reviewed October 14. The report visibly lists 89 entries and no date after October 16, 2019. The original PDF and complete field definitions were not independently obtained, and no public download link was located; the cover letter disclaims accuracy/completeness. Requester contact details and unnecessary defendant identifiers are not reproduced here.
• City News Service, September 29, 2022, carried by WBZ/iHeart. Contemporaneous reporting identifies Tryfman’s closing argument in a retrial with an August 2022 verdict; establishes one later jury proceeding, not a full trial history or a performance score.
• Los Angeles County Charter, section 55, printed p.44. County-hosted annotated edition contains the private-practice restriction; its application to APD deputies is corroborated by the official 2026 opinion below.
• Lettini v. Cherry Bekaert Advisory, B350508, September 10, 2026. Full official opinion reviewed; expressly applies the private-practice restriction to deputy APDs. Unpublished and nonprecedential; the case involves another attorney and supplies no misconduct finding against Ross.
• Court MVP qualifications, April 2026. Program training, experience and service commitments, with discretionary exceptions; not an individual activity or quality evaluation.
• Temporary Judge Program correspondence, October 20, 2026, forwarded to Sherafy by an interested reader. The displayed response from an @lacourt.ca.gov address reports 44 completed assignments. Sherafy did not receive it directly from the Court or independently authenticate the original message. Assignment dates, duration and evaluations were not supplied; this is an attributed program statement, not a full service log.
• “Jury Trials – Donna” workbook, report display dated October 8, 2026, submitted by the interested reader and reviewed October 21. Full populated sheet and filters reviewed: 56 event rows across 13 case numbers; 2024 trial-in-progress/deliberation sequences; bare trial labels in 2025/2026. Filter is case filed date from 2019 and assigned-to name, not completed trials from 2019. Not independently obtained from the agency; defendant identities and personal contact details are omitted here.
• sherafy.com Civic Outcomes Standard. Public methodology for source quality, uncertainty, realistic comparisons and judicial criteria.

Editorial currency and research limits

Research currency: Additional evidence reviewed October 21, 2026: the supplied trial-event workbook and forwarded October 20 Temporary Judge Program correspondence. The workbook displays an October 8 report date. Our public methodology and current live article were read again for this revision; the November roster, Bar profiles, LACBA ratings, live mediator listing and legal-source checks remain dated October 14 rather than being presented as freshly rechecked. The earlier supplied Ross report was generated August 20 and does not certify activity after that date. The spreadsheet and correspondence were submitted by an interested reader; the forwarded text describes Court communications and displays an @lacourt.ca.gov sender address. Original agency production of the new workbook, original email headers, a dated pro-tem assignment log and matched performance records were not obtained. Targeted open-web searches did not independently corroborate the newly listed 2024 proceedings; that is an access limit, not evidence that the events did not occur. No paid case files or locked court records were used.

Candidate-reported lifetime totals and mediator-profile details retain their source limits. Eastlake staffing accounts differ; campaign finance and outside spending were not fully reconciled. The recommendation is an editorial judgment about preparation, separate from factual confidence and any forecast of judicial performance. No independent expert review or performance guarantee is claimed. A fuller comparable record could change the low-confidence preference.

Return to the Los Angeles County Voter Guide 2026.