Paul Nguyen

Draft. Last updated 2026-10-17. This contest is still being reviewed.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Judicial 2 seats 2026-11-03

All Fullerton voters, and all voters in the other 57 California counties. A Supreme Court justice holds a statewide office, so both retention questions appear on every ballot in the state, and the Registrar of Voters lists the judicial contests on the Orange County ballot as Supreme Court Associate Justice and Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Division 1-3. These are two separate questions, one for each name printed, and not a contest between candidates: a voter marks yes or no on each question separately, and neither name can have an opponent. The two official lists print the two questions in different orders. The certified list of candidates, dated August 27, 2026, prints Kelli M. Evans first and Joshua Groban second, which is the order used in this file and in the contest index, and the Secretary of State's list of judicial candidates with headings and ballot questions, dated August 24, 2026, prints Joshua Groban first and Kelli M. Evans second. Southern California Appellate News and UNITE HERE Local 11 also print Groban before Evans. No street address was used for this file.

What this office does

A California Supreme Court justice sits on the state's court of last resort. The Judicial Branch's page on what appellate court justices do says most legal disputes involving state law are decided first by trial courts or certain administrative agencies, that a party who believes a trial court or agency made an error of law that harmed them may seek appellate review, that in cases other than death penalty appeals that review is sought first in the Court of Appeal, and that after the Court of Appeal decides, a party may seek review in the California Supreme Court.

It says death penalty appeals are decided only by the Supreme Court and not by the courts of appeal, that the Supreme Court grants review of only a few Court of Appeal decisions when necessary to resolve novel or disputed questions of law, and that for that reason the Court of Appeal decision is final in the vast majority of cases.

It says appellate courts do not take new evidence or reassess witness credibility, that they review the written record, that each case is considered by a panel of three justices, that a majority must agree, that all justices are bound to apply the law whether or not they personally agree with it, and that the retention election system was adopted by California voters to foster judicial independence.

The court's own roster page says the Supreme Court of California consists of the Chief Justice and six associate justices, each appointed or nominated by the Governor. The Judicial Branch's selection page says the office is nonpartisan, that a justice must have practiced law for at least 10 years, that the Governor submits a nominee's name to the State Bar's Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation for an evaluation of character, legal skills, objectivity, ethics and temperament, and that the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and a senior presiding justice of a Court of Appeal sit as the Commission on Judicial Appointments and confirm or reject the nomination after a public hearing open to comment in support of or in opposition.

The Secretary of State's voter guide page for the Supreme Court says a justice confirmed by that commission is subject to voter approval at the next gubernatorial election and thereafter at the conclusion of each term, that the term prescribed by the California Constitution is 12 years, and that a justice confirmed only until the next gubernatorial election runs for retention of the remainder of a predecessor's term, which will be either four or eight years.

The Secretary of State's election guide section for the Supreme Court says a justice whose term is expiring may file a declaration of candidacy between July 17 and August 15, 2026, that the filing fee is two percent of the first year's salary, that 7,000 voter signatures may be submitted in lieu of the fee, and that a justice who receives no campaign contributions and spends only personal funds on the filing fee need not file FPPC Forms 410 and 501 but must still file campaign disclosure statements.

The Judicial Branch's retention page says no one may run against a justice, that a justice who receives a majority of yes votes remains for another term, that supreme and appellate court justices generally do not actively campaign for retention, that voters everywhere in California decide whether to retain a supreme court justice because the office is statewide, and that several of the seven justices face retention elections every four years.

CalMatters says justices cannot campaign for the job, that voters do not get to choose a replacement and that if a justice loses, the Governor names a replacement. LAist says the court has a lot of discretion over which cases to accept, that a majority of justices must agree for a decision, that the justices write about 50 opinions in a fiscal year, that their decisions bind lower courts, and that they have sole responsibility for appeals involving the death penalty, disciplinary action against judges and attorneys, and rulings of the Public Utilities Commission, which sets utility rates.

CityHallPass reports the court's caseload for fiscal year 2024 to 2025 as 5,991 filings and 5,605 dispositions with 51 written opinions, and reports that the enacted 2026 to 2027 state budget gave the court 56.8 million dollars and 156.2 positions. The Secretary of State's election guide puts the associate justice salary at 298,721 dollars and the Chief Justice salary at 313,257 dollars, Ballotpedia puts the associate justice salary at the same 298,721 dollars and the state judicial branch budget at 5,254,030,000 dollars for the 2025 to 2026 fiscal year.S3S4S5S8S9S10S12S13S14S16S19

Contest context

  • The Secretary of State's certified list of candidates for the November 3, 2026 general election, dated August 27, 2026, prints the Supreme Court section under the heading For all 58 Counties with two questions, each asking whether the person named be elected to the office for the term provided by law: KELLI M. EVANS first and JOSHUA GROBAN second, both printed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The Secretary of State's separate list of judicial candidates with headings and ballot questions, dated August 24, 2026, prints the same two questions with the same wording in the opposite order, Groban first and Evans second. The Secretary of State's voter guide page for the Supreme Court prints the statements of qualifications in the certified list order, Evans then Groban, and the Registrar of Voters lists the judicial contests on the Orange County ballot as Supreme Court Associate Justice and Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Division 1-3.S1S2S3S11
  • These are retention questions rather than races between candidates, so no candidate statement, campaign platform or opposing candidate exists. The certified list and the election guide show that only two of the seven Supreme Court seats are on this ballot. The election guide's table lists the seats by position with the Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Carol A. Corrigan, Goodwin H. Liu and Leondra R. Kruger with no entry in the up for election column, and Kelli M. Evans and Joshua Groban each marked for election on November 3, 2026 with a term ending January 4, 2027. The court's roster page today lists the Chief Justice, five associate justices and one vacant seat. CalMatters and LAist state that the court currently has six justices because the Governor has not filled the vacancy.S1S2S4S5S12S13
  • The vacant seat is filled by the Governor, not by this election. The election guide's table lists that seat as Vacant with no election and no term up this year. Horvitz and Levy's At the Lectern blog records that the vacancy was created by the retirement of Justice Martin J. Jenkins in October 2025, quotes Bloomberg Law describing it as the third longest Supreme Court opening the state has seen in modern times, and explains that an appointment made after mid-August would probably keep a new justice off this November's ballot and delay that justice's first appearance before voters until November 2030. Ballotpedia's court profile records the same vacant seat in the political composition of the court and records that the Governor appoints and the Commission on Judicial Appointments confirms a replacement.S4S5S15S16S30
  • Every voter in Fullerton and in the rest of California decides both questions, because a Supreme Court justice holds a statewide office. The Judicial Branch's retention page draws the contrast with the courts of appeal, where voters in each appellate district alone decide retention. It also says supreme and appellate court justices generally do not actively campaign for retention and that the only promise they can make is to decide appeals impartially and according to the law, and it says that because supreme court justices hold statewide offices the information about them is contained in the statewide ballot pamphlet, while for court of appeal justices the pamphlet instead refers voters to a website and a hotline.S3S9S11
  • A majority of the votes cast on each question decides it, and a justice who receives a majority of yes votes remains for another term. The Judicial Branch's retention page states the majority rule, CalMatters states that voters do not get to choose a replacement and that the Governor names one if a justice loses, and LAist says the vote here is largely about sending a signal because it is rare for a justice to lose a seat. CalMatters records that voters removed Supreme Court justices only once, in 1986, when voters who supported the death penalty unseated three justices over their records on capital punishment, and the San Francisco Chronicle records 1986 as the last time a judge on this ballot did not win a retention election, describing a multimillion dollar campaign against three justices.S4S9S12S13S33
  • The California Constitution provides a 12 year term, and because both seats on this ballot have a term ending January 4, 2027, the election guide says a justice whose term is expiring runs for a full term of twelve years. Ballotpedia records that the terms of two California Supreme Court justices expire on January 4, 2027 and that both seats are up for retention on November 3, 2026. For Joshua Groban, Ballotpedia and CityHallPass record that his 2022 retention covered the four years left on the term of his predecessor, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and that this November's vote is for a full 12 year term, while Kelli M. Evans, appointed in 2022 and seated in 2023, has not faced a retention vote before.S4S15S14S16S17S18
  • Organizations and publications have taken positions on both questions, which are recorded for each candidate below. On the yes side, the Los Angeles County Bar Association posted on October 2, 2026 that it strongly endorses retaining the incumbent justices in an appellate retention election it describes as covering 2 California Supreme Court and 62 Court of Appeal justices, saying the justices up for retention all have a demonstrated record of fitness and competence and that none have had disciplinary issues with the Commission on Judicial Performance. Southern California Appellate News, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board and GrowSF urge a yes vote on the Supreme Court justices on the ballot, and UNITE HERE Local 11's 2026 California voter guide lists the Supreme Court retention elections as yes. On the no side, Craig Huey's California Voter Guide, which states that it identifies candidates aligned with conservative, Republican, Christian and libertarian values, rates the two justices at one star and two stars on its five star scale with a retain entry of no for each, Robyn Nordell's Conservative Voter Guide records no for each justice and states that Craig Huey's guide was its primary source, and Reform California's voter guide for Orange County records do not retain for each justice. Ballotpedia states that it is gathering endorsements and voter guide recommendations for this retention election and identifies none for either justice.S31S32S33S34S35S36S37S38S15S17S18

Candidates

Listed in ballot order. Candidates are described with the same sections and level of detail; no ranking or endorsement is implied.

Kelli M. Evans

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Incumbent

Bio

  • The Secretary of State's certified list prints the question for her seat as: Shall Associate Justice of the Supreme Court KELLI M. EVANS be elected to the office for the term provided by law? It prints no party preference, and the Judicial Branch's selection page says the office of appellate or supreme court justice is nonpartisan. Both official lists and the voter guide name her Kelli M. Evans. The certified list and the voter guide print her question first, while the Secretary of State's list of judicial candidates prints it second, after Joshua Groban's question.S1S2S3S10
  • The voter guide's statement of qualifications for her records bar admission in 1994, a law degree from the University of California, Davis School of Law in 1994 and a bachelor's degree from Stanford University in 1991, and lists a Ruth Chance litigation fellowship at Equal Rights Advocates in 1994 to 1995, an assistant public defender position in Sacramento County in 1995, staff attorney and later associate director roles at the ACLU of Northern California from 1995 to 1998 and from 2010 to 2013, a senior trial attorney position in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1998 to 2001, an attorney position at Relman and Associates from 2001 to 2004, federal court monitor work for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 2003 to 2010 and for the Northern District of Ohio from 2015 to 2017, senior director for the administration of justice at the California State Bar from 2014 to 2017, special assistant attorney general at the California Department of Justice from 2017 to 2019, and chief deputy legal affairs secretary in the Office of Governor Gavin Newsom from 2019 to 2021, with judicial service as a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court in 2021 to 2022 and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 2023 to the present.S3
  • The Governor's office announced her nomination on August 10, 2022, to the seat that would be vacated by Associate Justice Patricia Guerrero's elevation to Chief Justice, describing her as 53 years old and of Oakland, recording that she had served as an Alameda County Superior Court judge since 2021 and that she helped shape the state's moratorium on capital punishment, and listing the salary for the position as 279,677 dollars at that time. The California Courts newsroom recorded that the Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed her on November 10, 2022. KCRA's report of the confirmation, by Don Thompson of the Associated Press, records that the commission that confirmed her was the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and the senior presiding justice of a Court of Appeal, and that the State Bar's Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation rated her well qualified, which the report describes as a rare step lower than the commission's top rating of exceptionally well qualified.S20S22S23
  • The Secretary of State's election guide lists November 10, 2022 as her oath date for the Supreme Court seat, while Ballotpedia records that she assumed office on January 2, 2023, the date the Chief Justice's current term began, and the voter guide lists her Supreme Court service as beginning in 2023. This file records both dates rather than choosing between them. Ballotpedia records her term as ending on January 4, 2027, her years in the position as three, and her prior office as a judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County from 2021 to 2023.S3S4S17
  • Her official court biography records that before joining the Supreme Court she served as a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court presiding over criminal and civil matters, that she was chief deputy legal affairs secretary in the Governor's office advising on legal, policy and legislative issues, that she was special assistant to the Attorney General at the California Department of Justice with a focus on criminal justice, public safety and civil rights law and policy, that she was senior director for the administration of justice at the California State Bar, that she was associate director of the ACLU of Northern California, a senior trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and an assistant public defender in Sacramento County, and that she served on federal court appointed monitoring teams for the Oakland and Cleveland police departments. The Governor's office release records the same monitoring work and the same State Bar, ACLU, Department of Justice and public defender roles.S6S20
  • Her biography records that she sits on the California Commission on Access to Justice, that she has served on the governing boards of nonprofit organizations, and that she has received awards including the King Hall Distinguished Alumna Award, the Stanford Trailblazer Award, a Judge of the Year Award, the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service, the State Bar President's Award and a Medal of Achievement from the Washington Metropolitan Police Department.S6
  • Ballotpedia records that the base salary for the seat is 298,721 dollars, that she has not completed Ballotpedia's 2026 Candidate Connection survey, and that its campaign finance summary for her states that information is not yet available from OpenSecrets. The voter guide carries a statement of qualifications rather than a candidate statement for her, and its biography link points to the court's own biography page.S17S19S3
  • No campaign website was found for her. The voter guide's biography link to the court's official biography page is recorded as the website field for this candidate.S3S6

Record in office

  • This is her first retention question. She was confirmed in November 2022 and took the seat when the Chief Justice's term began in January 2023, and Ballotpedia records no earlier retention election for her or for the seat. CalMatters and CityHallPass both record that she is on the ballot for the first time since her appointment.S4S17S14S12
  • She has served on the Supreme Court since 2023. The court's roster lists her as an associate justice, her biography records her service from 2023, and the election guide lists her oath date as November 10, 2022 with a term ending January 4, 2027. Cases are decided by the full court or by panels and the court issues about 50 written opinions in a fiscal year, so her service shows up in opinions and in joined opinions rather than in a single case count.S3S4S5S6S13S17
  • Her record before this court is a trial court judgeship. Her biography records that she served as a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court in 2021 and 2022 presiding over criminal and civil matters, that the Governor's office appointed her to that bench from a career as a civil rights lawyer, federal civil rights prosecutor, public defender and state legal adviser, and that the State Bar's evaluation commission rated her well qualified in 2022.S6S20S23
  • She authored the court's unanimous opinion in Ruelas v. County of Alameda on April 22, 2024, holding that people held in county jail before conviction who worked for a for profit contractor supplying meals did not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under the Labor Code. Courthouse News quotes the opinion: We acknowledge the policy concerns raised by the parties. Under the law as it currently stands, however, we conclude that nonconvicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company to supply meals within the county jails and related custody facilities do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse records that Justice Evans authored the opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban and Jenkins concurred. The ACLU, which had filed an amicus brief arguing the opposite, stated that the decision means the county and the contractor are not bound by the state minimum wage law, that the Legislature may pass laws to protect incarcerated workers in county jails, and that counties and private companies have discretion to compensate them.S25S26S27
  • She dissented from the court's August 3, 2026 ruling in the Gilead case, in which the majority held that a drug manufacturer owes no duty of care to users of a nondefective drug when deciding whether and when to commercialize an allegedly safer alternative. Courthouse News quotes her dissent: the majority opinion grants drug manufacturers sweeping immunity from negligence liability, and drug manufacturers should be held liable for injuries caused when they act negligently or engage in willful misconduct, adding that the default duty of care should attach when drug manufacturers make decisions about whether and when to commercialize a drug known to be significantly safer than and as effective as an existing one.S29
  • She joined the concurrence written by Justice Groban in the court's April 30, 2026 bail decision, In re Kowalczyk. The California Lawyers Association records that the concurrence was joined by Justices Liu and Evans and that it noted the latitude Article I, section 12 gives the courts to order detention where release would present a clear danger, that conditions of release may be used to minimize risk, and that pretrial detention can cause harm to defendants, their families and the community.S28
  • The Commission on Judicial Performance's list of decisions on public judicial disciplinary cases by judge's name, retrieved for this run, contains no entry for this justice. The Los Angeles County Bar Association states that none of the justices up for retention have had disciplinary issues with the commission, Southern California Appellate News states the same, and the San Francisco Chronicle states that its queries found no disciplinary matters for the two Supreme Court justices while noting that the absence of a disciplinary record does not mean that no complaint was filed, only that no publicly known charge or punishment resulted.S39S31S32S33

Positions

Other
  • No policy positions from this candidate were found. The sources reviewed record judicial assignments, opinions, confirmations and evaluations rather than stated positions. The Judicial Branch's retention page states that supreme and appellate court justices generally do not actively campaign for retention and that the only promise they can make voters is to decide appeals impartially and according to the law, without fear or favor toward any individual or group. CalMatters states that justices cannot campaign for the job and that voters do not get to choose a replacement. Ballotpedia records that she has not completed its 2026 Candidate Connection survey. The voter guides retrieved for this run carry ratings and yes or no entries, not stated positions. None of the sources reviewed states a position from this justice on taxes, housing, cost of living, insurance, utilities, schools, public safety or any other policy question, so this file records no policy position rather than inferring one.S9S12S13S14S17

Endorsements

  • The Los Angeles County Bar Association posted on October 2, 2026 that it strongly endorses retaining the incumbent justices in the appellate retention election, which it describes as covering 2 California Supreme Court and 62 Court of Appeal justices, and states that the justices up for retention all have a demonstrated record of fitness and competence and that none have had disciplinary issues with the Commission on Judicial Performance.S31
  • Southern California Appellate News urges a yes vote on every justice appearing for retention in its post of September 25, 2026, which names the two Supreme Court justices as Groban and Evans.S32
  • The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board recommends a yes vote on all of the judges and justices on the ballot, including the two Supreme Court justices, in its editorial of October 10, 2026.S33
  • UNITE HERE Local 11's 2026 California voter guide lists her under judges with a yes entry, printed as Associate Justice Kelli M. Evans.S37
  • GrowSF's voter guide recommends voting yes to retain both justices on the Supreme Court and states that neither appears in the Commission on Judicial Performance public discipline record.S38
  • Craig Huey's California Voter Guide rates her one star on its five star scale, which its legend describes as Not Recommended, with a retain entry of no. Robyn Nordell's Conservative Voter Guide, which states that Craig Huey's guide was its primary source, records no for her.S34S35
  • Reform California's voter guide for Orange County lists her under CA Supreme Court and Court of Appeals with a do not retain entry. The guide prints no reason for that entry in the section retrieved.S36
  • Ballotpedia states that it is gathering endorsements and voter guide recommendations for the 2026 retention election and identifies none for her.S17

Funding

No campaign finance filing found.

S4S9S12S13S14S17S31S38

No campaign committee, filing, donor list or dollar total for this seat was found for Kelli M. Evans. The Judicial Branch's retention page and the Los Angeles County Bar Association both state that supreme and appellate court justices generally do not actively campaign for retention, and CalMatters states that justices cannot campaign for the job. CityHallPass documents a search of the Secretary of State's Cal-Access campaign finance data in a bulk export dated September 29, 2026, including searches of committee names, campaign statement cover pages, independent expenditure reports and itemized expenditures for each justice's name and for the words retain, retention and justice, and reports that it found no committee for or against either justice, that no donor data exists because no committee has formed, and that the only retention committees in the data are from earlier elections. GrowSF states that it found no organized campaign. Ballotpedia's page for this retention election carries empty campaign finance tables sourced to Transparency USA, and its candidate page states that campaign finance information is not yet available from OpenSecrets. The Secretary of State's election guide says a justice who appears on the ballot and receives no campaign contributions and spends only personal funds on the filing fee need not file FPPC Forms 410 and 501 but must still file campaign disclosure statements. The Secretary of State's Cal-Access committee list and Power Search application returned no readable committee search result to the fetch tools used in this run, so this file cannot state whether any committee has been formed for this question. The total raised and cash on hand fields are null for that reason rather than estimated.

What this could mean for your household

  • Households with a family member held in a county jail who works while in custody: she authored the April 22, 2024 Ruelas opinion holding that people held before conviction who work for a for profit company under a county jail contract do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under state law. That is a record of an opinion on how the wage law applies to that group, not a stated position on jail wages or jail employment policy.S25S26S27
  • Households that pay electricity, gas and water bills: LAist records that the Supreme Court has sole responsibility for appeals involving rulings of the Public Utilities Commission, which sets utility rates, and the Judicial Branch records that the court may review decisions of administrative agencies. The sources reviewed state no position from this justice on utility rates or on agency decisions, so this records the court's jurisdiction and not a stated view.S8S13
  • Households weighing what a retention vote does: the Judicial Branch's retention page says a justice who receives a majority of yes votes remains for another term, CalMatters states that a majority of no votes means the Governor names a replacement, and this seat's term ends January 4, 2027, so this question decides who holds the seat for the next term. Neither source identifies a stated position from this justice on taxes, fees, housing, insurance or utility costs.S4S9S12S17

Campaign website

Joshua Groban

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Incumbent

Bio

  • The Secretary of State's certified list prints the question for his seat as: Shall Associate Justice of the Supreme Court JOSHUA GROBAN be elected to the office for the term provided by law? It prints no party preference, and the Judicial Branch's selection page says the office of appellate or supreme court justice is nonpartisan. The certified list prints his name as JOSHUA GROBAN and the voter guide prints Joshua P. Groban. The certified list prints his question second, after Kelli M. Evans, while the Secretary of State's list of judicial candidates prints it first.S1S2S3S10
  • The voter guide's statement of qualifications for him records bar admission in December 1998, a law degree from Harvard Law School in 1998 and a bachelor's degree from Stanford University in 1995, and lists a clerkship for Judge William C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 1998 to 1999, attorney positions at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison from 1999 to 2005 and at Munger, Tolles and Olson from 2005 to 2010, service as senior advisor to Governor Jerry Brown from 2011 to 2018, and lecturing at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law from 2014 to 2018, with judicial service as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 2018 to the present.S3
  • Governor Brown's office announced his selection on November 14, 2018, describing him as 45 years old, of Los Angeles, and a senior advisor to the Governor since 2011 who oversaw the appointment of approximately 600 judges, and recording that he was legal counsel to the Governor's 2010 campaign, an attorney at Munger, Tolles and Olson from 2005 to 2010 and at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison from 1999 to 2005, and a law clerk for Judge Conner from 1998 to 1999. Courthouse News reported his confirmation hearing of December 21, 2018, where the Commission on Judicial Appointments, made up of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline, confirmed him by unanimous vote to fill the vacancy left by the 2017 retirement of Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and where Presiding Justice Kline said that a majority of the court would consist of people who had never previously sat on a court and asked whether that was healthy, while stating that he knew Groban was qualified.S21S24
  • CityHallPass records that the State Bar's evaluation commission rated him Exceptionally Well Qualified after its evaluation of November 27, 2018, which is the commission's top rating, and LAist lists the same 2018 rating for him. Both sources state the rating as a fact about the evaluation, not as an endorsement.S13S14
  • The sources do not agree on whether his service began in December 2018 or January 2019, and this file records all of the published dates. The Secretary of State's election guide lists January 3, 2019 as his oath date, his official court biography states that he began serving on the court in January 2019, the voter guide lists his Supreme Court service as 2018 to the present, and Ballotpedia records that he assumed office on December 21, 2018, the date of his confirmation, with a tenure of 2018 to the present.S3S4S7S18
  • His official court biography records that he received a bachelor's degree with honors and distinction from Stanford University and a law degree cum laude from Harvard Law School, that he clerked for Judge William C. Conner in the Southern District of New York, that he practiced complex civil litigation with a focus on antitrust, internal investigations and intellectual property, that as senior advisor to Governor Brown he advised on judicial appointments, legal policy and legislative issues and advised the governor on the appointment of over 600 judges, roughly one out of every three judges in the state, that he taught state appellate practice at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, that he served on a local school board, took part in mentor programs for college and law students, and lectured on judicial appointments, and that he grew up in San Diego where he attended public schools.S7
  • Ballotpedia records that the seat's predecessor was Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, that his current term ends on January 4, 2027, that he has served seven years in the position, that the base salary for the seat is 298,721 dollars, that he has not completed Ballotpedia's 2026 Candidate Connection survey, and that his campaign finance summary states that information is not yet available from OpenSecrets. The Secretary of State's election guide lists the associate justice salary at the same 298,721 dollars.S4S18S19
  • No campaign website was found for him. The voter guide's biography link to the court's official biography page is recorded as the website field for this candidate.S3S7

Record in office

  • This is his second retention question. Ballotpedia records that he was retained on November 8, 2022 with 68.0 percent of the vote, 5,664,354 yes votes to 2,661,668 no votes out of 8,326,022 votes cast, and that the result was certified. CityHallPass records that the 2022 vote covered the four years left on the term of his predecessor, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and that this November's vote is for a full 12 year term, which matches the Secretary of State's election guide statement that a justice whose term is expiring at this election runs for a full term of twelve years.S4S14S16S18
  • He has served on the Supreme Court since 2018 or 2019, depending on the date source, as recorded above in his biography section. The court's roster lists him as an associate justice. Cases are decided by the full court or by panels and the court issues about 50 written opinions in a fiscal year, so his service shows up in opinions and in joined opinions rather than in a single case count.S3S5S7S13S18
  • His record before this court contains no prior judicial office, which the sources state directly and which the confirmation hearing record confirms. His career before appointment was a federal clerkship, private practice in complex civil litigation with a focus on antitrust, internal investigations and intellectual property, and eight years as senior advisor to Governor Brown in which he vetted about 600 judicial appointments. At his confirmation hearing, according to Courthouse News, he told the panel he hoped to be conventional in the sense of being duty-bound by precedent and that each justice brings their own unique background and experience and point of view.S7S21S24S14
  • He wrote the majority opinion in the court's August 3, 2026 Gilead decision, which held that a drug manufacturer owes no duty of care to users of a nondefective drug when deciding whether and when to commercialize an allegedly safer alternative drug. Courthouse News quotes the opinion: What today's decision declines to do is recognize, for the first time anywhere, sweeping liability for injuries caused by a concededly nondefective drug because the manufacturer allegedly failed to make a different drug available sooner, adding that imposing such liability would create substantial burdens and would risk adverse consequences for pharmaceutical innovation, public health, and patient safety. The same report records the dissent by Justice Evans, who wrote that the majority grants drug manufacturers sweeping immunity from negligence liability.S29
  • He wrote a concurrence in the court's April 30, 2026 bail decision, In re Kowalczyk, which was joined by Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans. The California Lawyers Association records that the concurrence noted that Article I, section 12 gives the court latitude to order the detention of those whose release would present a clear danger to victim or public safety, that conditions of release may be used where detention is not authorized, and that pretrial detention can cause harm to defendants, their families and the community. It quotes his concurrence: The risk that a defendant who is released pending trial may flee or reoffend is the price of any framework that presumes innocence and that treats liberty as the norm. The imposition of bail in an amount that is not reasonably attainable upsets this balance by depriving those accused of crimes of their freedom based on their financial circumstances, without any trial or conviction. Today's opinion marks the end of that practice in our state.S28
  • He joined the court's unanimous April 22, 2024 opinion in Ruelas v. County of Alameda, which was authored by Justice Evans and held that people held in county jail before conviction who worked for a for profit contractor supplying meals did not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse records his concurrence in that opinion along with those of the Chief Justice and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger and Jenkins.S25S26
  • The Commission on Judicial Performance's list of decisions on public judicial disciplinary cases by judge's name, retrieved for this run, contains no entry for this justice. The Los Angeles County Bar Association states that none of the justices up for retention have had disciplinary issues with the commission, Southern California Appellate News states the same, and the San Francisco Chronicle states that its queries found no disciplinary matters for the two Supreme Court justices while noting that the absence of a disciplinary record does not mean that no complaint was filed, only that no publicly known charge or punishment resulted.S39S31S32S33

Positions

Other
  • No policy positions from this candidate were found. The sources reviewed record judicial opinions, administrative service, confirmations and evaluations rather than stated positions. The Judicial Branch's retention page states that supreme and appellate court justices generally do not actively campaign for retention and that the only promise they can make voters is to decide appeals impartially and according to the law, without fear or favor toward any individual or group. CalMatters states that justices cannot campaign for the job and that voters do not get to choose a replacement. Ballotpedia records that he has not completed its 2026 Candidate Connection survey. The voter guides retrieved for this run carry ratings and yes or no entries, not stated positions. None of the sources reviewed states a position from this justice on taxes, housing, cost of living, insurance, utilities, schools, public safety or any other policy question, so this file records no policy position rather than inferring one.S9S12S13S14S18

Endorsements

  • The Los Angeles County Bar Association posted on October 2, 2026 that it strongly endorses retaining the incumbent justices in the appellate retention election, which it describes as covering 2 California Supreme Court and 62 Court of Appeal justices, and states that the justices up for retention all have a demonstrated record of fitness and competence and that none have had disciplinary issues with the Commission on Judicial Performance.S31
  • Southern California Appellate News urges a yes vote on every justice appearing for retention in its post of September 25, 2026, which names the two Supreme Court justices as Groban and Evans.S32
  • The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board recommends a yes vote on all of the judges and justices on the ballot, including the two Supreme Court justices, in its editorial of October 10, 2026.S33
  • UNITE HERE Local 11's 2026 California voter guide lists him under judges with a yes entry, printed as Associate Justice Joshua Groban.S37
  • GrowSF's voter guide recommends voting yes to retain both justices on the Supreme Court and states that neither appears in the Commission on Judicial Performance public discipline record.S38
  • Craig Huey's California Voter Guide rates him two stars on its five star scale, which its legend describes as a rating to use only to prevent a worse candidate from winning, with a retain entry of no. Robyn Nordell's Conservative Voter Guide, which states that Craig Huey's guide was its primary source, records no for him.S34S35
  • Reform California's voter guide for Orange County lists him under CA Supreme Court and Court of Appeals with a do not retain entry. The guide prints no reason for that entry in the section retrieved.S36
  • Ballotpedia states that it is gathering endorsements and voter guide recommendations for the 2026 retention election and identifies none for him.S18

Funding

No campaign finance filing found.

S4S9S12S13S14S18S31S38

No campaign committee, filing, donor list or dollar total for this seat was found for Joshua Groban. The Judicial Branch's retention page and the Los Angeles County Bar Association both state that supreme and appellate court justices generally do not actively campaign for retention, and CalMatters states that justices cannot campaign for the job. CityHallPass documents a search of the Secretary of State's Cal-Access campaign finance data in a bulk export dated September 29, 2026, including searches of committee names, campaign statement cover pages, independent expenditure reports and itemized expenditures for each justice's name and for the words retain, retention and justice, and reports that it found no committee for or against either justice, that no donor data exists because no committee has formed, and that the only retention committees in the data are from earlier elections, including a committee to retain Justice Werdegar that closed in 2003. GrowSF states that it found no organized campaign. Ballotpedia's page for this retention election carries empty campaign finance tables sourced to Transparency USA, and its candidate page lists no 2026 campaign finance figures. The Secretary of State's election guide says a justice who appears on the ballot and receives no campaign contributions and spends only personal funds on the filing fee need not file FPPC Forms 410 and 501 but must still file campaign disclosure statements. The Secretary of State's Cal-Access committee list and Power Search application returned no readable committee search result to the fetch tools used in this run, so this file cannot state whether any committee has been formed for this question. The total raised and cash on hand fields are null for that reason rather than estimated.

What this could mean for your household

  • Households with a family member held in jail before trial: he wrote the concurrence in the court's April 30, 2026 Kowalczyk decision, which held that the bail provision in Article I, section 12 controls and condemned setting bail above a defendant's ability to pay, and his concurrence states that bail in an amount that is not reasonably attainable deprives people of their freedom based on their financial circumstances. That is a record of an opinion on how bail is set, not a stated position on a pending proposal or on bail amounts.S28
  • Households that pay for prescription drugs and households weighing consumer claims: he wrote the majority opinion in the August 3, 2026 Gilead decision, which held that a manufacturer of a nondefective drug owes no duty of care about whether and when to commercialize an allegedly safer alternative, and Justice Evans dissented. The majority stated its concern about burdens and consequences for innovation and patient safety, and the dissent stated that manufacturers should be liable for injuries caused by negligence. Both positions are recorded on the facts of that ruling.S29
  • Households weighing what a retention vote does: the Judicial Branch's retention page says a justice who receives a majority of yes votes remains for another term, CalMatters states that a majority of no votes means the Governor names a replacement, and this seat's term ends January 4, 2027, so this question decides who holds the seat for the next full term. Neither source identifies a stated position from this justice on taxes, fees, housing, insurance or utility costs.S4S9S12S18

Campaign website

Sources

  1. Certified List of Candidates, November 3, 2026 General Election, Supreme Court section stating For all 58 Counties and printing the two ballot questions in the order Kelli M. Evans then Joshua Groban (dated August 27, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  2. List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, November 3, 2026 General Election, printing the same two Supreme Court questions in the order Joshua Groban then Kelli M. Evans (dated August 24, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  3. Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026 General Election, Supreme Court page with the electoral procedure, the 12 year term, the confirmation process and the statements of qualifications for Kelli M. Evans and Joshua P. Groban California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  4. Justices of the California Supreme Court, Elections and Terms of Office, general election guide section 5 (dated October 15, 2026), listing each seat with whether it is up for election, the term end and the oath date, plus the filing window, the filing fee, the salary and the 7,000 signature option California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  5. Justices of the Court, the court's roster page listing the Chief Justice, five associate justices and one vacant seat Supreme Court of California Accessed 2026-10-17
  6. Justice Kelli M. Evans, official court biography Supreme Court of California Accessed 2026-10-17
  7. Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban, official court biography Supreme Court of California Accessed 2026-10-17
  8. What Appellate Court Justices Do, on the path of an appeal, the limits of appellate review, the three justice panel, the duty to apply the law and the purpose of retention elections Judicial Branch of California, Courts of Appeal Accessed 2026-10-17
  9. Appellate Retention Elections, what they are and how voters learn about the justices, including that no one may run against a justice and that supreme court justices are decided by voters everywhere in California Judicial Branch of California, Courts of Appeal Accessed 2026-10-17
  10. How Appellate Court Justices are Selected, on the nonpartisan office, the 10 year practice requirement and the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and Commission on Judicial Appointments process Judicial Branch of California, Courts of Appeal Accessed 2026-10-17
  11. Contests Qualified for the Ballot for the 2026 General Election, listing the nonpartisan judicial contests as Supreme Court Associate Justice and Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Division 1-3 Orange County Registrar of Voters Accessed 2026-10-17
  12. Which CA Supreme Court justices are up for election in 2026? The 2026 voter guide page on the retention process, the two justices on the ballot, the 1986 removal of three justices and the statement that justices cannot campaign for the job CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
  13. California Supreme Court justices: What you need to know, the retention guide recording what the court does and does not do, the six sitting justices because of an unfilled vacancy, the 12 year term, the two candidates with their evaluation ratings, and that there appears to be no formal opposition (published October 1, 2026, updated October 16, 2026) LAist Accessed 2026-10-17
  14. California Supreme Court retention vote, November 2026, guide page with the appointment, confirmation, evaluation, prior retention vote and opinion record of each justice, the court's caseload and budget figures, and a documented search of Cal-Access that found no committee for or against either justice (published September 29, 2026, updated October 1, 2026) CityHallPass Accessed 2026-10-17
  15. California Supreme Court elections, 2026, recording that the terms of two justices expire on January 4, 2027, the 2026 retention election date, the filing deadline, the ballot access requirements and the political composition of the court including one vacant seat Ballotpedia Accessed 2026-10-17
  16. California Supreme Court, court profile with the certified 2018 and 2022 retention results, the selection and vacancy rules and the salary Ballotpedia Accessed 2026-10-17
  17. Kelli M. Evans, candidate page with tenure, the January 4, 2027 term end, the assumption of office date, the Alameda County Superior Court service, the base salary and the 2026 retention entry Ballotpedia Accessed 2026-10-17
  18. Joshua Groban, candidate page with tenure, the January 4, 2027 term end, the assumption of office date, the predecessor, the certified 2022 retention result, the base salary and the 2026 retention entry Ballotpedia Accessed 2026-10-17
  19. California court salaries and budgets, with the associate justice salary, the intermediate appellate court salary and the state judicial branch budget by year Ballotpedia Accessed 2026-10-17
  20. Governor Newsom Announces Historic Supreme Court Nominations, recording the August 10, 2022 nomination of Judge Kelli Evans to the associate justice seat vacated by Justice Guerrero's elevation to Chief Justice, her career and the salary for the position (August 10, 2022) Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Accessed 2026-10-17
  21. Governor Brown Selects Joshua Groban for California Supreme Court, recording the November 14, 2018 selection, his service as senior advisor and his oversight of about 600 judicial appointments (November 14, 2018) Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Accessed 2026-10-17
  22. Commission Confirms Judge Kelli Evans to California Supreme Court, recording the November 10, 2022 confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments California Courts Newsroom Accessed 2026-10-17
  23. California installs first lesbian Supreme Court justice, recording the State Bar evaluation rating of well qualified, the confirmation panel and the judicial election rules (November 10, 2022) KCRA (Associated Press report by Don Thompson) Accessed 2026-10-17
  24. Brown Adviser Groban Confirmed to California High Court, recording the unanimous December 21, 2018 confirmation, the seat left by Justice Werdegar's retirement and the question raised at the hearing about justices without prior judicial experience (December 21, 2018) Courthouse News Service Accessed 2026-10-17
  25. California Supreme Court rules that county jail kitchen workers can go unpaid, reporting the April 22, 2024 decision in Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the for-profit contractor and the quoted passage from the opinion by Justice Evans (April 22, 2024) Courthouse News Service Accessed 2026-10-17
  26. Ruelas v. County of Alameda, case record stating that Justice Evans authored the opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban and Jenkins concurred, and summarizing the holding Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School Accessed 2026-10-17
  27. ACLU Responds to California Supreme Court Ruling on Minimum Wage for Incarcerated Workers, on the April 22, 2024 Ruelas ruling and its statement that the Legislature may act and that counties and contractors may choose to pay (April 22, 2024) American Civil Liberties Union Accessed 2026-10-17
  28. California Supreme Court Addresses Conflicting Constitutional Bail Provisions, Sets Out New Framework for Pretrial Release, on the April 30, 2026 decision in In re Kowalczyk and the concurrence by Justice Groban joined by Justices Liu and Evans (published May 11, 2026, issue dated May 26, 2026) California Lawyers Association, Criminal Law eNews Accessed 2026-10-17
  29. California Supreme Court rules Gilead not liable for defective HIV drug claims, reporting the August 3, 2026 decision, the quoted majority opinion by Justice Groban and the quoted dissent by Justice Evans (August 3, 2026) Courthouse News Service Accessed 2026-10-17
  30. What's taking so long? Some guesses about why the Supreme Court vacancy is still unfilled, recording that the vacant seat was created by Justice Jenkins's October 2025 retirement, quoting Bloomberg Law that it is the third longest Supreme Court opening in modern times, and noting that an appointment after mid-August would probably keep a new justice off this ballot (May 17, 2026) Horvitz & Levy LLP, At the Lectern blog Accessed 2026-10-17
  31. California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Justices Retention Election, stating the association strongly endorses retaining the incumbent justices, that the retention election covers 2 California Supreme Court and 62 Court of Appeal justices and that none of the justices up for retention have had disciplinary issues with the Commission on Judicial Performance (October 2, 2026) Los Angeles County Bar Association, LACBA News Accessed 2026-10-17
  32. Vote to confirm our Justices!, urging a yes vote on every justice on the ballot, naming two Supreme Court justices as Groban and Evans and stating that the justices up for retention have a demonstrated record of fitness and competence and no disciplinary issues with the Commission on Judicial Performance (September 25, 2026) Southern California Appellate News Accessed 2026-10-17
  33. Yes or no? Here are the Chronicle's endorsements for California Supreme Court and appeals courts, recommending a yes vote on all of the judges and justices on the ballot, including the two Supreme Court justices, and stating that its queries found no disciplinary matters and that the last judge not retained was in 1986 (October 10, 2026) San Francisco Chronicle Accessed 2026-10-17
  34. California Voter Guide, November 3, 2026 General Election, Judicial Races, the PDF with the five star rating legend and the ratings and retain entries for the California Supreme Court (copy dated September 16, 2026) California Voter Guide (Craig Huey) Accessed 2026-10-17
  35. Conservative Judicial Recommendations for the November 3, 2026 California General Election, Part 1 covering the California Supreme Court with a no entry for each justice and the statement that Craig Huey's California Judicial Voter Guide was the primary source (dated October 3 and 6, 2026) Robyn Nordell's Conservative Voter Guide Accessed 2026-10-17
  36. Voter Guide, Orange County, 2026 General Election, with a do not retain entry for each California Supreme Court justice under the heading CA Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Reform California Accessed 2026-10-17
  37. 2026 California Voter Guide, listing the Supreme Court retention elections as yes for Associate Justice Joshua Groban and Associate Justice Kelli M. Evans (last updated October 16, 2026) UNITE HERE Local 11 Accessed 2026-10-17
  38. San Francisco voter guide, November 2026 election, Supreme Court retention contest, recommending a yes vote to retain both justices and stating that neither appears in the Commission on Judicial Performance public discipline record (last updated September 10, 2026) GrowSF Accessed 2026-10-17
  39. Decisions by Judge's Name, the commission's list of public decisions on judicial disciplinary cases, searched for each name on this ballot California Commission on Judicial Performance Accessed 2026-10-17