Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Troy W. Slaten
Current job title: Administrative Law Judge
Age: 51
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: Appointed Administrative Law Judge (not elected)
City where you reside: Los Angeles
Campaign website or social media: troyslatenforjudge.com
What do you consider to be your judicial philosophy? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
My judicial philosophy rests on three pillars: fairness, integrity, and equal access to justice.
A judge’s first duty is to follow the law and the Constitution: not legislating from the bench, not favoring one side, and not letting personal politics intrude on a courtroom. Every litigant, whether represented by the finest firm in Los Angeles or appearing without counsel, deserves the same patience, respect, and impartial hearing.
After two decades as a trial attorney prosecuting and defending, years serving as a LA Superior Court Temporary Judge, and my current role as a sitting Administrative Law Judge, I have presided over thousands of cases. That experience has reinforced my commitment to efficiency without sacrificing due process. A good judge listens carefully, rules promptly, and explains the reasoning so parties understand the outcome.
Public safety and rehabilitation are not opposites. Where the law allows, I will support collaborative courts: drug, mental health, and veterans’ diversion courts that address root causes. Where conduct demands accountability, I will impose it.
Justice demands preparation, temperament, integrity, and empathy. I will manage dockets effectively, reduce unnecessary delays, and uphold public trust. Los Angeles County deserves judges ready on day one.
How do you think your personal experience — legal or otherwise — would inform your decisions as a judge? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
My path to the bench has been anything but ordinary, and every chapter has shaped how I see the people who will appear before me.
I started working at age 5 and grew up in the entertainment industry, where I learned early that contracts, agents, and complicated adult decisions can shape a child’s life. That experience gave me lasting empathy for young people caught up in systems they did not create, which is why I served on the board of Pacific Lodge Youth Services for at-risk boys referred by the County Probation Department.
As an attorney for over 20 years, I have stood on both sides of the courtroom: prosecuting as a certified law clerk in the District Attorney’s office, then spending years defending the accused. I represented over 170 victims of the Las Vegas Route 91 mass shooting, sitting with families during the worst moments of their lives.
That combination of prosecution, defense, victims’ advocate, and now sitting judge means I understand every chair in the courtroom. A judge who has only seen one side cannot deliver justice to all sides.
How would you approach situations where you have judicial discretion within the law? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Judicial discretion is a sacred trust, not a license. When the law gives a judge room to decide, that room must be filled with preparation, not preference.
My approach starts with the record. I read the briefs, study the file, and come to the bench ready. Discretion exercised without preparation is just guesswork in a robe. I then weigh the factors the law actually directs me to consider: the nature of the offense or dispute, the history of the parties, public safety, the interests of victims, and the prospects for rehabilitation where relevant. Personal politics, public pressure, and what might play well in the press have no place in that calculus.
I believe in consistency. Similar cases should yield similar outcomes, regardless of who the lawyers are or who is watching. Predictability is what gives the public confidence in the courts.
Where the law permits collaborative courts, diversion, or alternative sentencing, I will use those tools when the facts warrant. Where the law and the facts call for incarceration, I will impose it without hesitation.
Discretion is judgment under law, never judgment above it.
How would you weigh your own personal beliefs against the law, should they conflict? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
The law wins. Always.
A judge who substitutes personal belief for the law is not a judge. That is the bright line, and I will not cross it.
When I took the oath, I swore to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office. That oath is not conditional. It contains no exception for cases where the judge would have voted differently as a legislator or ruled differently as an advocate.
Every judge has personal views. Mine were shaped by a lifetime in Los Angeles, by raising my voice for victims, and by defending the accused. The discipline of the office is setting those views aside. If a statute is constitutional and the facts are established, my job is to apply the law as written. If I cannot in good conscience do so, the proper course is recusal, not improvisation.
The remedy for a law a judge dislikes is the legislature, the ballot box, or appellate review. It is never the bench.
Voters deserve a judge whose rulings are grounded in law, not in personal preference.
As an existing member of the legal community, how would you handle potential claims of misconduct against local attorneys, law firms or law enforcement organizations? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Misconduct allegations are serious, and so is the presumption that members of our legal community act with integrity. Both must be honored.
If a credible claim of attorney misconduct arises in my courtroom, the proper channel is the State Bar of California, and I will refer it. If misconduct by a law enforcement officer affects a case before me, the proper channels include the agency’s internal affairs, the District Attorney’s office, and, where appropriate, defense disclosure under Brady. I will not hesitate to make those referrals, and I will document the record clearly so that reviewing bodies have what they need.
What I will not do is prejudge. An accusation is not a finding. Every attorney, officer, and firm is entitled to the same due process that any litigant receives in my courtroom.
Recusal is a tool I will use if warranted. After two decades practicing in Los Angeles, I know many lawyers and law enforcement professionals on both sides. If a prior relationship could create even the appearance of partiality, I will step aside.
Public confidence in the courts depends on judges who follow the rules and apply them to everyone equally.
What is your philosophy on judicial activism and a judge’s potential role in shaping or setting public policy? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Judges are not legislators, and the bench is not a policy-making body. That is my philosophy, full stop.
Our system separates powers for a reason. The legislature writes the laws. The executive enforces them. Judges interpret and apply them to the facts of individual cases. When a judge strays beyond that role, even with the best intentions, the result is the same: rogue judges making policy choices that belong to the people and their representatives.
I do not believe a judge’s job is to deliver outcomes that match the judge’s preferences, the public mood, or the headlines. It is to read the statute, follow binding precedent, respect the Constitution, and rule on what is actually before the court. Nothing more, nothing less.
That restraint is not passivity. A judge must vigorously protect constitutional rights, ensure due process, and check government overreach when the law requires it. Those are not policy choices. They are the core function of the judiciary.
If voters want different laws, they have a legislature and a ballot box. What they need from me is a judge who will apply the law fairly, predictably, and without an agenda.