Election Officials Trim Ballot Designation

Friday, March 13, 2026

Page 1

Election Officials Trim Ballot Designation

By a MetNews Staff Writer

The Office of Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder yesterday excised words from the ballot designation proposed by Superior Court candidate Anna Slotky Reitano, disallowing a reference to the unit within the County Counsel’s Office to which she is assigned.

Rejected was the designation, “Deputy County Counsel, Justice and Safety Division, County of Los Angeles.” The words, “Justice and Safety Division” were excised.

The action followed by one day the sending of a letter to Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan by a person with broad knowledge of judicial elections, writing in the capacity of a voter. The letter-writer went into considerable detail, highlighting changes in Elections Code §13107 effected by legislation enacted in 2017.

Wording of Subdivision

Note was made of subd. (b)(2) which says:

“For a candidate for judicial office who is an active member of the State Bar employed by a city, county, district, state, or by the United States, the designation shall appear as one of the following:

“(A) Words designating the actual job title, as defined by statute, charter, or other governing instrument.

“(B) One of the following ballot designations: ‘Attorney,’ ‘Attorney at Law,’ ‘Lawyer,’ or ‘Counselor at Law.’ The designations ‘Attorney’ and ‘Lawyer’ may be used in combination with one other current principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate, or the principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents.”

Research Cited

The writer said:

“I have recently conducted research on the elections for LASC, since this new law became effective, and focused solely on the issue of the ballot designations which were actually utilized for these election cycles. Here is what I found: For the LASC judicial elections from 2018-2024, there were approximately a total of 42 seats which actually appeared on the ballot. In those 42 office elections, approximately a total of 103 candidates utilized their respective ballot designations under the “public sector” section we are discussing here (Election Code § 13107 (b)(2).)”

The letter continues:

“Not surprising, only one person utilized their option under subsection (B), [Office No. 70, 2002]. All of the other 102 candidates utilized their option under subsection (A). Not a single one of those 102 designations even attempted to do what Ms. Reitano is now attempting to do—namely to put the ‘division’ or section to which they were then-currently assigned. Every one of those 102 designations merely stated what the law mandated—the listing of their ‘actual job title, as defined by statute, charter, or other governing instrument.’ ”

Not ‘Job Title’

It was asserted:

“When one simply reviews the official job titles of the attorneys employed by the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office, these job titles range from ‘County Counsel,’ ‘Assistant County Counsel,’ ‘Principal Deputy County Counsel,’ ‘Senior Assistant County Counsel,’ or ‘Deputy County Counsel.’ The division or department to which each of these attorneys are assigned is not part of that job title.”

Reitano could not be reached for comment yesterday. She said earlier:

“I am confident in the accuracy of my submission. I provided several versions of my ballot designation, all of which reflect my official title and are not misleading. This is verified by my employment records, pay statements, and official county signature line. Furthermore, I consulted with David Gould, who raised no objections to these designations.”

Gould handles financial reports for campaigns and sometimes acts as a political consultant.

Reitano’s Adversaries

The candidate is running for Office No. 65. Her competitors are Justin Allen Clayton, whose designation is “Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles County,” Chellei G. Jimenez, who is labeled “Attorney,” and Samuel Wolloch Krause who, as of mid-afternoon yesterday, had no description under his name,

The Office of Registrar-Recorder is considering whether his chosen designation of “Attorney/Temporary Judge” is permissible. A 1988 Court of Appeal decision limits use of the word “Judge” and §13107 requires that a pursuit be a “principal” one.

Also without a designation, at present, is Thanayi Lindsey, a candidate for Office No. 181. Her desired designation is “Judge of Administrative California Hearings-Special Education Division.” Election officials are pondering whether that is her “actual job title.”

Undisturbed is the ballot designation of David DeJute, a candidate for Office No. 87. He claims to be a “Law Professor/Attorney” but, at Pepperdine, is an adjunct professor, not a professor.