Most people walk into a voting booth, look at the long list of judicial candidates, and just... freeze. It’s a weird feeling. You see "Judge of the Superior Court Office 137" on the ballot and realize you have absolutely no idea who these people are or what that specific number even means. Honestly, it’s not your fault. Judicial races are notoriously quiet, tucked away at the bottom of the ballot, and often ignored by major news outlets unless there’s a massive scandal.
But here’s the thing. Office 137 isn’t just a number. It represents a seat on the Los Angeles County Superior Court—the largest single-jurisdiction trial court in the United States. This is where the real work of the legal system happens. We’re talking about a court system that serves over 10 million people. When you vote for Office 137, you’re picking someone who might decide the fate of a family law dispute, a multi-million dollar business lawsuit, or a high-stakes criminal trial. It matters.
The Reality of Office 137
What is Office 137, exactly? In the L.A. County system, "offices" are basically just designated seats. They aren't tied to a specific geographic neighborhood or a specific type of law like "The Divorce Seat" or "The Murder Seat." Instead, every judge is technically a county-wide official. The number 137 is essentially a filing label used by the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to keep the candidates organized.
Most of the time, these seats are occupied by incumbents. If a judge is running for re-election and nobody challenges them, their name doesn't even show up on your ballot. You only see Office 137 when a judge retires or when someone decides to challenge the sitting judge. In recent election cycles, like the 2024 primary and subsequent general elections, we’ve seen a surge in contested races for seats like this.
Take the 2024 race for Office 137. It featured a fascinating matchup between Luz Herrera, a law professor and attorney, and Tracey Blount, a Senior Deputy County Counsel.
This wasn't just a choice between two names. It was a choice between two very different career paths. Blount brought the perspective of someone who has spent years representing the county in dependency court—dealing with the foster care system and the rights of children. Herrera, on the other hand, brought an academic and community-lawyering background. When you look at a race like this, you’re looking at the soul of the bench. Do you want a career prosecutor? A public defender? A civil litigator? A child advocate?
Why the "Bar Rating" is Your Best Friend
If you’re trying to figure out who to vote for and you don’t have time to read 500 pages of legal briefs, you need to look at the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) ratings. They do the heavy lifting for you.
Basically, a committee of dozens of lawyers and judges interviews the candidates and talks to their peers. They then issue a rating.
💡 You might also like: Why a Man Hits Girl for Bullying Incidents Go Viral and What They Reveal About Our Breaking Point
- Exceptionally Well Qualified: The gold standard.
- Well Qualified: They know their stuff and have the temperament for it.
- Qualified: They can do the job, but they didn't blow anyone away.
- Not Qualified: Usually a red flag about their experience or professional conduct.
In the contest for Judge of the Superior Court Office 137, these ratings became a major talking point. In 2024, Tracey Blount was rated "Well Qualified," while Luz Herrera was rated "Qualified." Now, does a "Qualified" rating mean someone will be a bad judge? Not necessarily. But it tells you that the legal community sees a difference in their level of "bench-ready" experience.
It's kinda like hiring a contractor. One has built fifty houses; the other has built ten but has really cool ideas about architecture. Both might get the job done, but their approach will be worlds apart.
The Power of the Title
Candidates spend a lot of money and time fighting over their "Ballot Designation." This is the three-word description under their name. Why? Because most voters don't do research. They just see "Prosecutor" or "Children's Advocate" or "Attorney at Law" and make a split-second decision based on vibes.
In the Office 137 race, Tracey Blount used "Senior Deputy County Counsel," which sounds very official and authoritative. Luz Herrera used "Attorney/Law Professor." For many voters, "Law Professor" suggests a deep understanding of the rules, while "County Counsel" suggests someone who is already deep inside the government machinery. These tiny linguistic choices win and lose elections.
The Grind of a Superior Court Judge
Let’s talk about what the winner of Office 137 actually does all day. It’s not like Law & Order. It’s a lot of paperwork. A lot of sitting in a robe while lawyers argue over technicalities in the California Evidence Code.
A judge in this position oversees a courtroom that could be located anywhere from the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center downtown to a satellite courthouse in Lancaster or Long Beach. They deal with a crushing caseload. The L.A. Superior Court handles millions of filings a year. If a judge isn't efficient, the whole system backs up.
This is why temperament is so huge. You want a judge who is patient but firm. Someone who won't let a trial drag on for six months because they can't make a decision on a motion. In the Office 137 race, the debate often circled back to who had more "courtroom hours."
📖 Related: Why are US flags at half staff today and who actually makes that call?
Blount’s supporters pointed to her years of daily appearances in dependency court. Herrera’s supporters pointed to her broad legal knowledge and her work helping underserved communities access legal services. It's a classic "specialist vs. generalist" debate.
Money and Endorsements in Judicial Races
You’d be surprised how much money flows into these races. It’s not millions, usually, but it’s enough to buy mailers that end up in your recycling bin.
Endorsements matter a lot here because they act as shortcuts for voters. If you see that the Los Angeles County Democratic Party or the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) has endorsed a candidate for Office 137, it tells you where they sit on the ideological spectrum.
In the 2024 cycle, the "Defenders of Justice" slate—a group of progressive candidates—tried to change the makeup of the court by running public defenders and civil rights lawyers. While the candidate for Office 137 wasn't officially part of that specific "slate" in the same way some others were, the overall trend was a move toward a more diverse bench in terms of professional background.
For decades, the bench was almost exclusively former prosecutors. Now, voters are being asked if they want more balance.
What Most People Get Wrong
The biggest misconception? That judges make law. They don't. At least, not at the Superior Court level.
The judge in Office 137 is a "trier of fact" and an administrator of the rules. They follow the precedents set by the California Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. If they try to go rogue and "make law," their decisions just get overturned on appeal. What they do have is discretion. They decide if a piece of evidence is "more prejudicial than probative." They decide how much bail to set (within certain guidelines). They decide the sentence in a criminal case within a specific range.
👉 See also: Elecciones en Honduras 2025: ¿Quién va ganando realmente según los últimos datos?
That discretion is where their personal philosophy leaks in. And that’s why you’re voting.
Key Factors to Consider for Office 137
If you’re looking at this race in a future election, don't just look at the names. Look at these three things:
- Trial Experience: How many cases have they actually taken to a verdict? You’d be shocked how many lawyers have never actually finished a trial.
- Disciplinary Record: Check the State Bar of California website. It's public. See if they've ever been suspended or reprimanded.
- Community Roots: Do they actually live in the community they are judging?
Actionable Steps for the Informed Voter
Don't let the ballot overwhelm you next time. You can actually vet these people in about fifteen minutes if you know where to look.
First, go to the Los Angeles County Bar Association website and find their judicial election evaluations. It is the single most reliable way to weed out candidates who aren't ready for the bench.
Second, check out Voter Game Plan from LAist or the League of Women Voters’ Voters Edge tool. They usually send out questionnaires to the candidates for Office 137. If a candidate doesn't bother to answer the questionnaire? That’s usually a sign they aren't taking the public’s need for information seriously.
Third, look at who is paying for the ads. If a candidate is funded almost entirely by personal loans, they might be trying to "buy" a seat. If they have a broad base of small donors and legal associations, they likely have the respect of their peers.
Ultimately, the person sitting in the Office 137 seat will make decisions that change lives. They might be the person deciding if a parent gets to keep their kids, or if a small business owner gets wiped out by a lawsuit. It's one of the few places where your vote has a direct, tangible impact on the "room where it happens."
Take the extra ten minutes to look past the "Law Professor" or "Prosecutor" label. The integrity of the court depends on voters who actually give a damn about the details.