Thursday, March 5, 2026
Page 8
Perspectives
Judge Hammock Reviles at Candidate’s Improper Ballot Designation
By Roger M. Grace
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Randolph Hammock was irked.
He spotted on the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder’s website a ballot designation for a judicial candidate in the June 2 primary, Deputy County Counsel Anna Slotky Reitano, which the Elections Division staff should have blocked, but didn’t. The designation that was permitted (though not with finality) is “Deputy County Counsel, Justice and Safety Divison, County of Los Angeles.”
That description of what Reitano does is in violation of Elections Code §13107, as amended by a 2017 Senate bill. Hammock testified in favor of the proposed legislation, traveling to Sacramento, at his own expense, to do so. He provided meticulously compiled statistics and other materials to the office of Sen. Ben Allen, D-Los Angeles, the legislator who carried the bill, SB 235.
It passed and was signed into law. But repeatedly, judicial candidates seek, consciously or through ignorance, to skirt its provisions.
★
The legislation stemmed from an editorial in the MetNews. My wife, Jo-Ann, who was chair of LACBA’s delegation to the Conference of California Bar Associations, drafted a prototype bill; it was approved unanimously by the conference; the conference’s lobbyist enlisted Allen to introduce it.
A key purpose of the bill was to preclude government attorneys from providing descriptions of themselves, to be placed under their names on the ballot, that went beyond their official office titles and the geographic area in which they serve. This was in response to such emotion-evoking designations as “Child Molestation Prosecutor.”
Sec. 13107(b)(2)(A) now provides that if a judicial candidate wants to allude to his or her government law office position, words must be used “designating the actual job title, as defined by statute, charter, or other governing instrument.” Subsect. (b)(3)(B) adds: “If the candidate is an official or employee of a county, the name of the county shall appear preceded by the words ‘County of.’ ”
The ballot designation for Reitano, to be in compliance with §13107, would be ‘Deputy County Counsel, County of Los Angeles.’ “
★
Hammock said of Reitano’s ballot designation:
“This is exactly what the new law was trying to prevent. If she can do this, a DDA can now put: Deputy District Attorney, County of Los Angeles, Hardcore Gang Unit or Major Narcotics Unit or Child Molestation Unit, etc.
“It is supposed to be their generic job title.”
That pinpoints why Reitano’s proposed designation should have been bounced by the Registrar-Recorder’s Office. Her reference to “Justice and Safety Divis[i]on,” though an irrelevancy, is not innocuous; from those words, voters could glean the impression that she is actively promoting the causes of “justice” and public “safety.” If it were acceptable to toss in a reference to the candidate’s specific activities, ballot designations could be beefed up, thwarting a primary objective of the legislation.
★
The judge added:
“I note that Ms. Reitano’s campaign website highlights her “HONESTY” and “INTEGRITY.” That rather bold statement is not consistent with her attempt to utilize an improper ballot statement.
“And by the way, ‘Divison [sic]’ is misspelled. I am hopeful that instead of correcting the spelling, she will use her ‘integrity’ to merely eliminate that portion of her designation in order to conform with the ballot designation laws.”
While I respect Hammock as someone who is discerning and fair-minded, I’m not certain he’s right in inferring a lack of integrity on Reitano’s part. It could be a matter of folly rather than dishonesty.
★
Asked for a comment on Hammock’s criticism, the candidate writes:
“[T]he inclusion of ‘Justice and Safety Division’ accurately identifies the subject matter area in which I practice and clarifies the nature of my legal work advising justice and public safety related county departments.
“The designation therefore provides voters with truthful and relevant occupational information, does not imply incumbency, and does not mislead voters.
“For these reasons, the designation accurately reflects my current occupation and complies with Elections Code §13107, as I understand it.”
It might be that she simply does not understand the statute (though it is not ambiguous). Reference to her assignment to the Justice and Safety Division is, I assume, “truthful,” but is not part of her “actual job title.” Nothing in §13107 authorizes tossing in extraneous information, even if accurate.
In a follow-up email, Reitano provided documentation that she is, in fact, assigned to the Justice and Safety Division—which is not in question—and noted: “Regarding the misspelling of ‘Division,’ I did not input that data myself; it appears to be a clerical error.”
Reitano is one of four candidates for Office No, 65. The others are Deputy Public Defender Justin Allen Clayton and private practitioners Chellei G. Jimenez and Samuel Wolloch Krause.
Krause’s chosen ballot designation is blatantly in violation of the statute. More about that in a moment.
★
Blameworthiness lies not as much with Reitano as it does with the Registrar-Recorder’s Office. Even candidates with the highest potential for serving as judges could fumble in connection with the election process owing to unfamiliarity with procedural requirements.
On the other hand, those county employees who take in the nominating petitions are expected to be trained in the requirements for ballot designations as laid down by statutes, as amplified by regulations promulgated by the Office of Secretary of State, and as interpreted by appellate court opinions. They should not accept designations that are facially violative of the rules.
Indeed, court clerks do not hesitate to reject filings.
★
There used to be a modicum of scrutiny by Registrar-Recorder’s Office employees upon receipt of ballot designations. I gather from an email sent by Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan that such is no longer so—though his message is by no means marked by clarity.
I emailed him a “news and analysis” piece published in Monday’s issue of this newspaper bearing the heading, “Registrar Permits Proscribed Designation.” Logan’s office had accepted a ballot designation for Krause of “Attorney/Temporary Judge.”
A 1988 Court of Appeal opinion declares that anyone “who is not a ‘judge,’ as that term is defined in the Constitution and statutes of this state” may not use the word “judge” in a ballot designation.
Logan advised:
“Please be aware that this office has not yet officially approved any ballot designations and will not do so until after the candidate filing period is over and after the public review period.” OK, his office had not made a final decision following receipt of any protests but, as I reminded him, it had not disallowed the designation that was presented. I noted:
“Elections Code Sec. 13107(e) provides: [¶] ‘The Secretary of State and any other elections official shall not accept a designation of which any of the following would be true: [¶] ‘(1) It would mislead the voter.’ [¶] The words ‘not accept’ connotes bouncing them at the filing counter.”
He replied (in these exact words):
“My response was not to argue semantics, rather to inform that we candidate filing documentation is received and logged as complete; however, review of submitted/proposed designations occurs separately including internal review, the bouboic examination period, and any protests before a determination is made.”
While the meaning of that is not easy to decipher, I gather that Logan’s office does not concern itself with the legitimacy of a ballot designation unless, after it is accepted, someone contests it. That does not reflect a conscientious approach.
★
While an intent to mislead might not exist on the part of Reitano, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that David DeJute, a candidate for Office No, 87, has knowingly falsified his position. He chose the ballot designation, “Law Professor/Attorney.”
He is an attorney. He is not a law professor. DeJute does teach at Pepperdine but is merely an adjunct professor. There is a big difference.
DeJute is a former assistant U.S. attorney. That would not entitle him to bill himself as a former U.S. attorney. A deputy district attorney could not truthfully declare the status of “district attorney.” Word limitations do not justify outright lying.
The candidate points out that his job at Pepperdine is a fulltime one and remarks:
“ ‘Adjunct’ does not diminish my role as a law professor. Although I am not a full law professor, associate law professor or assistant law professor, I am still a law professor, and am required to discharge all of the responsibilities of one. No one refers to me at the law school, nor thinks of me, as an ‘adjunct professor,’ but rather as a ‘law professor.’ ”
How someone is addressed is irrelevant. An assistant chief of police is apt to be addressed as “Chief,” a commissioner as “Judge.” An “acting” office-holder, discharging all responsibilities of the position, is generally addressed by the office title. Yet, these persons could hardly use such unofficial titles on a ballot.
Informally, deputy district attorneys are referred to as “district attorneys” or “DAs” and deputy public defenders as “public defenders” or “PDs.” But surely DeJute would not concede that one of his competitors in the race, Deputy Public Defender Anthony (A.J.) Bayne, could be identified on the ballot as the “Public Defender.” Not would he conceivably agree that his other rival, Deputy Los Angeles City Attorney Sharee Sanders Gordon. could be termed “City Attorney.”
The reality is that an adjunct professor is an adjunct professor, not a professor.
★
Other infirm ballot designations initially accepted by Logan’s office are:
•Frank Amador, “Attorney/Lawyer.” Sec. 13107 permits use of the word “Attorney” with one “other” pursuit.
•Binh Q. Dang, “Deputy Public Defender.” It has been corrected to add “Los Angeles County.”
•Sharee Sanders Gordon, “Deputy City Attorney, Los Angeles.” That’s technically defective for not specifying “City of Los Angeles,” as required by §13107, though the meaning is clear.
•Thanayi Lindsey, “Judge of Administrative California Hearings-Special Education Division.” That’s not an “actual job title.” She’s an “Administrative Law Judge,” not a “Judge.”
•David Ross, “Deputy Public Defender, County of Los Angeles.” It’s been changed to say “Deputy Alternate Public Defender,” with the county specified.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company