Skip to main content

Judging the Judges November 2014

Sharon Kyle: The California 2014 General Election has 14 candidates running unopposed for various judicial offices. As these are not competitive races, the only way any of these candidates could be defeated is if by some miracle someone were to get enough voters to write-in the opposing candidate's name and office.
Judging the Judges November 2014

Judging the Judges and the November 2014 General Election

The California November 2014 General Election ballot has three candidates running unopposed for the California Supreme Court and eleven candidates running unopposed to serve as justices for the court of appeal. As these are not competitive races, they are not listed on this page.

But the Superior Court has two offices whose judges are running in competitive races in the upcoming general election. While the LA Progressive will not be making any endorsements in these races, we will provide you with information on the candidates and have included the endorsements made by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party for the non-judicial races at the botton of this page. The Los Angeles County Bar Association rates all judges in judicial races and provides information to the public that explains their rating system. The L.A. County Bar Association rated each of the candidates as follows:

Office No. 61

Office No. 87

Current Los Angeles County Democratic Party Endorsements


 November 4, 2014 Statewide General Elections & Local Elections

Additional endorsements will be considered and announced by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Statewide Propositions

Proposition 1 – YES – Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (AB 1471)
Proposition 2 – YES – State Reserve Policy
Proposition 45 – YES - Insurance Rate Public Justification and Accountability Act
Proposition 46 – NO - Stop the Healthcare Lawsuit Measure
Proposition 47 – YES – Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 48 – YES – Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum. (AB 277)
Proposition 49 - The California Supreme Court ordered the California Secretary of State to remove Proposition 49 from the ballot. To learn why voters will not have the option of voting on this issue, click here.

Here are brief descriptions of the six propositions:

  • Prop1. Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects. Authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, and drinking water protection. Fiscal Impact: Increased state bond costs averaging $360 million annually over 40 years. Local government savings for water-related projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades.
  • Prop 2. State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Requires annual transfer of state general fund revenues to budget stabilization account. Requires half the revenues be used to repay state debts. Limits use of remaining funds to emergencies or budget deficits. Fiscal Impact: Long-term state savings from faster payment of existing debts. Different levels of state budget reserves, depending on economy and decisions by elected officials. Smaller local reserves for some school districts.
  • Prop 45.Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute. Requires Insurance Commissioner's approval before health insurer can change its rates or anything else affecting the charges associated with health insurance. Provides for public notice, disclosure, and hearing, and subsequent judicial review. Exempts employer large group health plans. Fiscal Impact: Increased state administrative costs to regulate health insurance, likely not exceeding the low millions of dollars annually in most years, funded from fees paid by health insurance companies.
  • Prop 46. Drug and Alcohol Testing Of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute. Requires drug testing of doctors. Requires review of statewide prescription database before prescribing controlled substances. Increases $250,000 pain/suffering cap in medical negligence lawsuits for inflation. Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs from raising the cap on medical malpractice damages ranging from tens of millions to several hundred million dollars annually, offset to some extent by savings from requirements on health care providers.
  • Prop 47. Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute. Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug and property offenses. Inapplicable to persons with prior conviction for serious or violent crime and registered sex offenders. Fiscal Impact: State and county criminal justice savings potentially in the high hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State savings spent on school truancy and dropout prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.
  • Prop 48. Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum. A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects, tribal gaming compacts between the state and the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Wiyot Tribe. Fiscal Impact: One-time payments ($16 million to $35 million) and for 20 years annual payments ($10 million) from Indian tribes to state and local governments to address costs related to the operation of a new casino.

Los Angeles County Offices

Los Angeles County Assessor
Jeffrey Prang

Los Angeles County Sheriff
DO NOT VOTE Paul Tanaka

Los Angeles County Supervisor
Dist. 3 – Sheila Kuehl

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge
Office 61 – Jacqueline H. Lewis
Office 87 – Andrew M. Stein


Scroll to Continue

Recommended Articles

Inglewood Mayor
James Butts*

City of Redondo Beach
Measure CM – YES
Measure BE – YES

City of Santa Clarita
Measure S – NO

Santa Monica City Council
Sue Himmelrich
Kevin McKeown*
Pam O’Connor*

Santa Monica Rent Control Board
Steve Duron
Nicole Phillis

Community College Districts

Santa Monica Community College District
Nancy Greenstein*
Louise Jaffe*
Maria Loya
Barry Snell*

School Districts

Azusa Unified School District
Measure K – No Endorsement

Fullerton Joint Union High School District
Joanne Fawley

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
Oscar de la Torre*
Laurie Lieberman*
Ralph Mechur*
Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein

Water Districts

West Basin Municipal Water District
Div. 1 – Harold Williams

Statewide Constitutional Offices

GovernorJerry Brown*
Lieutenant GovernorGavin Newsom*
Secretary of StateAlex Padilla
Attorney GeneralKamala D. Harris*
TreasurerJohn Chiang
State ControllerBetty Yee
Insurance CommissionerDave Jones*
Supt. of Public InstructionTom Torlakson*

State Board of Equalization
Dist. 1 – Chris Parker
Dist. 3 – Jerome Horton*

State Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal, Second District Judicial Retention
LACDP does not oppose the retention of California Supreme Court Justices and State Court of Appeal, Second District Judges on the November 4, 2014 ballot.

U.S. Congress

CD23 Raul Garcia
CD26 Julia Brownley*
CD27 Judy Chu*
CD28 Adam Schiff*
CD29 Tony Cardenas*
CD30 Brad Sherman*
CD32 Grace Napolitano*
CD33 Ted Lieu
CD34 Xavier Becerra*
CD35 Norma Torres
CD37 Karen Bass*
CD38 Linda Sanchez*
CD39 Pete Anderson
CD40 Lucille Roybal-Allard*
CD43 Maxine Waters*
CD44 Janice Hahn*
CD47 Alan Lowenthal*

State Senate

SD18 Robert Hertzberg
SD20 Connie Leyva
SD22 Ed Hernandez*
SD24 Kevin de Leon*
SD30 Holly Mitchell*
SD32 Tony Mendoza
SD34 Jose Solorio

State Assembly

AD36 Steve Fox*
AD38 Jorge Fuentes
AD39 Raul Bocanegra*
AD41 Chris Holden*
AD43 Mike Gatto*
AD44 Jacqui Irwin
AD45 Matt Dababneh*
AD46 Adrin Nazarian*
AD48 Roger Hernandez*
AD49 Ed Chau*
AD50 Richard Bloom*
AD51 Jimmy Gomez*
AD52 Freddie Rodriguez*
AD53 Miguel Santiago
AD54 Sebastian Ridley-Thomas*
AD55 Gregg Fritchle
AD57 Ian Calderon*
AD58 Cristina Garcia*
AD59 Reggie Jones-Sawyer*
AD62 Autumn Burke
AD63 Anthony Rendon*
AD64 The LA Progressive endorses Prophet Walker
AD66 Al Muratsuchi*
AD70 Patrick O’Donnell