# Justice Mark Hanasono *legal · Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District retention · judge* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2025-05-07 to 2026-10-14. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 12 sources) Hanasono joined Division Three in 2025 after 13 years as a Los Angeles County public defender and alternate public defender and about 12 years as a Superior Court criminal judge [Justice Mark K. Hanasono; Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 5.7.25]. He was rated "exceptionally well qualified" and confirmed unanimously in June 2025 [Justice Mark K. Hanasono; Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles]. His published record is two authored opinions and no dissents or concurrences [Published opinions by Mark Hanasono, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]: one denied a 1993 murder convict resentencing, taking a side in an appellate split the Supreme Court is reviewing [People v. Taito, B337324; P. v. Taito (B337324, 2025-10-28; opinion by Mark Hanasono)]; the other split a CSU faculty-bargaining dispute, upholding the duty to bargain but voiding the violation finding [Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd., B340818]. A 2025 profile quotes him on writing clear opinions [DJ profiles J. Hanasono]. Reform California says do not retain; DSA-LA and the cahighways blog say retain [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County; November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices; DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide]. ### Record highlights - Census, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 2 authored published opinions, 0 dissents or concurrences. Published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. [Published opinions by Mark Hanasono, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Jan. 26, 2026, Trustees of CSU v. PERB: affirmed that CSU must bargain the effects of its student vaccine policy, but set aside PERB's unfair-practice finding and remedy for lack of substantial evidence. [Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd., B340818] - Oct. 28, 2025, People v. Taito: affirmed denial of resentencing for a 1993 robbery-murder; held aiding the underlying felony with intent to kill satisfies Penal Code § 189(e)(2), noting the Supreme Court will have the final word. [People v. Taito, B337324; P. v. Taito (B337324, 2025-10-28; opinion by Mark Hanasono)] - Confirmed unanimously to Division Three in June 2025; Superior Court judge from 2013, including Assistant Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division 2020-2022. [Justice Mark K. Hanasono; Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles] ### Stated positions - Reported 2025 quote: "Every opinion we write is an opportunity to explain--not just decide." [DJ profiles J. Hanasono] - Reported 2025 quote on defense appeals: "it's their job to raise those issues. You've got to address them." [DJ profiles J. Hanasono] - In his opinions: disability-accommodation law does not displace collective bargaining (2026); felony-murder liability under § 189(e)(2) turns on aiding the felony, not the killing (2025). [Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd., B340818; P. v. Taito (B337324, 2025-10-28; opinion by Mark Hanasono)] ### Gaps - Only two published opinions, both unanimous; no dissents, concurrences, or constitutional-rights rulings, and no unpublished decisions reviewed. - No substantive criticism of his record from any source; the only opposition gives no reason. - His own words outside opinions come only from a reported profile excerpt, not a full interview. ### Arguments for / praise - No ethics or misconduct issues; his trial courtroom was sought after by both prosecutors and defense lawyers. The blog relies on 'Google AI' summaries. — *cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - Mostly inoffensive pre-appointment career as a public defender; 'probably vote yes.' — *Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles* [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide] ### Arguments against / criticism - Do not retain (no reason given; same call for nearly every Second District justice). — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Systematic sample under a fixed rule applied to every justice: all separate opinions (up to 3), then the most recent authored opinions, up to 5 texts, from the court's published-opinion listings, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026. Hanasono has only two published opinions in that window, both authored majorities for unanimous Division Three panels, so the sample is 2 texts (0 separate, 2 authored): Trustees of CSU v. PERB (S1, Jan. 2026, public-sector labor) and People v. Taito (S2, Oct. 2025, felony-murder resentencing). No dissents, constitutional-rights rulings, or unscripted speech. Text-and-structure statutory reader who leans on precedent construing identical language (Dickey in S2) and on statutory structure (comparing subdivisions (e)(2) and (e)(3) in S2). Defers to PERB's legal judgment on bargaining scope but tests its fact-finding against the record, setting aside the unfair-practice finding for lack of substantial evidence (S1). On an open appellate split he picks a side while saying the Supreme Court will decide (S2). Outcomes: S2 denies a murder defendant resentencing; S1 gives the union the legal point and the university the violation finding. Articulation: **strong**. Both opinions state the holding up front and organize by issue. S1 is record-driven, parsing a witness's use of 'implemented' and the burden of proof. S2 sets out the five-case split plainly, answers the contrary opinions (Kelly, Jackson) in footnotes, and adds a structural argument comparing subdivisions (e)(2) and (e)(3). Prepared judicial prose only. Consistency: **insufficient_evidence**. Two opinions in unrelated fields three months apart cannot establish consistency. Within them the method is the same: text and structure first, attention to burden and record, narrow holdings. - Public-employer effects bargaining: Student vaccine rules with foreseeable faculty-health effects must be bargained; disability-accommodation law does not displace collective bargaining. - "PERB did not err by finding that CSU has a duty to bargain over the effects of its revised student vaccine policy." [Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd., B340818] (2026-01-26) - "Because we see no indication that the Legislature intended to allow employees to seek disability accommodations permitted by FEHA and the ADA only through individual negotiations, to the exclusion of collective bargaining, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the PERB's conclusion that the 2023 policy was a proper subject of effects bargaining." [Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd., B340818] (2026-01-26) - Clarifying bargaining demands: An employer may seek clarification informally rather than only at the bargaining table. - "As the County of Orange dissent notes, requiring that clarification take place through formal bargaining eviscerates the distinction between bargainable and nonbargainable matters and allows employee organizations to demand bargaining over even non-negotiable management decisions." [Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd., B340818] (2026-01-26) - Felony-murder resentencing (Penal Code § 189(e)(2)): A non-killer who aided the underlying felony with intent to kill remains liable; a special-circumstance finding bars resentencing. - "Until then, we follow those cases that interpret section 189, subdivision (e)(2) to mean the non-killer must aid, abet, or assist in the qualifying felony, not the killing." [P. v. Taito (B337324, 2025-10-28; opinion by Mark Hanasono)] (2025-10-28) - "We agree with Morris and Lopez I that the Legislature’s use of the same phrase interpreted in Dickey indicates its intent that the phrase in section 189, subdivision (e)(2) has the same meaning." [P. v. Taito (B337324, 2025-10-28; opinion by Mark Hanasono)] (2025-10-28) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; unpublished decisions and opinions he joined are not sampled. Two unanimous majorities cannot show how he writes in dissent, rules on constitutional claims, or reviews criminal trials beyond resentencing. Opinions are institutional products. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-14** — Published: DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide (Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-08-24** — Published: List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-24** — Secretary of State lists Hanasono for retention on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot (California Secretary of State) - **2026-01-26** — Published: Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd., B340818 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2026-01-26** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2026-01-26** — Authored published opinion in Trustees of Cal. State Univ. v. PERB (B340818) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-10-28** — Authored published opinion in People v. Taito (B337324) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-10-28** — Published: People v. Taito, B337324 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2025-10-28** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2025-10-28** — Published: P. v. Taito (B337324, 2025-10-28; opinion by Mark Hanasono) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2025-06-24** — Published: Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles (California Courts Newsroom) - **2025-06-24** — Commission on Judicial Appointments confirms Hanasono (California Courts Newsroom) - **2025-06-13** — Published: DJ profiles J. Hanasono (Southern California Appellate News (Ben Shatz)) - **2025-06** — Confirmed unanimously by the Commission on Judicial Appointments (California Courts of Appeal) - **2025-06** — Confirmed unanimously (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2025-05-07** — Published: Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 5.7.25 (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom) - **2025-05-07** — Newsom nominates Hanasono to Division Three (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom) - **2025-05-07** — Nominated to the Second District Court of Appeal (Southern California Appellate News (Ben Shatz)) - **2025-05** — Nominated to the Court of Appeal by Gov. Newsom (California Courts of Appeal) - **2025-05** — Nominated by Gov. Newsom (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2024-08** — PERB final decision (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2024-03-18** — Trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2023-03-08** — CFA files unfair practice charge (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2023-02-14** — CSU adopts Executive Order 803 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2021-08-24** — Taito petitioned for resentencing (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2013** — Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court by Gov. Brown (California Courts of Appeal) - **1994-12-15** — Taito sentenced to life without parole (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) ## Sources ### DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide - Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles · endorsement · published 2026-10-14 · stance: support - DSA-LA's guide groups Hanasono among justices with "mostly inoffensive pre-appointment careers" and says voters should "probably vote yes," noting he was a Los Angeles County public defender. - Hanasono is noted as a former Los Angeles County public defender. - Recommendation is a soft yes based solely on pre-appointment career. ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - A personal voter-guide blog recommends retaining Hanasono, finding no ethics or misconduct issues; its discussion relies on "Google AI" summaries rather than primary records. - Recommendation: Retain (Yes). - Describes his trial courtroom (Department 117) as sought after by both prosecutors and defense lawyers. - Notes his all-public-defender pre-bench career and says no biased or controversial rulings have been tied to him. ### List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published 2026-08-24 · stance: not_applicable - The Secretary of State's official list of judicial contests for November 3, 2026 includes a retention question for Associate Justice Mark Hanasono, Second District, Division Three. - Ballot question: "Shall Associate Justice MARK HANASONO be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" - Listed under Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura). ### Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd., B340818 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three · court opinion · published 2026-01-26 · stance: not_applicable - Writing for a unanimous panel, Hanasono split the decision in a CSU faculty-union dispute over student vaccine rules: PERB correctly found CSU must bargain the policy's effects on faculty health, but no substantial evidence showed CSU had implemented the policy or refused to bargain before the union filed its charge. - Affirms that the 2023 student vaccine policy is subject to effects bargaining; ADA/FEHA accommodation duties do not displace collective bargaining. - Sets aside PERB's unfair-practice finding and make-whole remedy. - Places the burden of proving implementation on the union as charging party, and finds the record "devoid" of evidence of implementation before March 8, 2023. - Adopts a PERB dissent's view that an employer may seek clarification of a bargaining demand informally, not only at the bargaining table. ### People v. Taito, B337324 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three · court opinion · published 2025-10-28 · stance: not_applicable - Writing for a unanimous panel, Hanasono affirmed the denial, without a hearing, of a resentencing petition from a man convicted of a 1993 robbery-murder, holding the jury's felony-murder special-circumstance finding makes him ineligible as a matter of law. - Declines to decide whether the record conclusively shows Taito was the actual killer. - Takes a side in a five-case appellate split: aiding the underlying felony with intent to kill satisfies Penal Code section 189(e)(2). - Relies on People v. Dickey's reading of identical language and on the structure of section 189(e). - Engages the contrary Kelly and Jackson opinions in footnotes and notes the Supreme Court will have "the final word." ### P. v. Taito (B337324, 2025-10-28; opinion by Mark Hanasono) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3 · court opinion · published 2025-10-28 · stance: not_applicable - Writing for a unanimous panel, Hanasono affirmed the no-hearing denial of resentencing for a man convicted of a 1993 robbery-murder: the jury's felony-murder special-circumstance finding makes him ineligible as a matter of law. - Declines to decide whether the record conclusively shows Taito was the actual killer. - Takes a side in a five-case appellate split: a non-killer who aids the underlying felony with intent to kill is liable under Penal Code section 189(e)(2). - Relies on People v. Dickey's reading of the same phrase and on the structure of section 189(e). - Answers the contrary Kelly and Jackson opinions in footnotes and notes the Supreme Court "will have the final word." ### Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2025-06-24 · stance: neutral - The judicial branch announces the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Hanasono as Associate Justice of Division Three. - Confirmed by Chief Justice Guerrero, Attorney General Bonta, and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert. - Fills the vacancy created by Justice Luis A. Lavin's retirement. ### DJ profiles J. Hanasono - Southern California Appellate News (Ben Shatz) · news · published 2025-06-13 · stance: neutral - Southern California Appellate News excerpts a Daily Journal profile of Hanasono on his nomination, quoting him on his public-defender roots and on the purpose of appellate opinions. - Reported quote: "Being on the appellate court was never something I plotted out." - Reported quote: "Every opinion we write is an opportunity to explain--not just decide. If our rulings aren't clear or accessible, they're not useful." - Reported quote on defense appeals: "from the defense perspective, it's their job to raise those issues. You've got to address them." - Notes he twice sat as a pro tem associate justice on the Second District. ### Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 5.7.25 - Office of Governor Gavin Newsom · news · published 2025-05-07 · stance: neutral - Governor Newsom's release nominating then-Judge Hanasono as Associate Justice of Division Three, filling the vacancy left by Justice Luis A. Lavin's retirement. - Superior Court judge since 2013; Deputy Alternate Public Defender 2004–2013; Deputy Public Defender 2000–2004; D.C. Superior Court law clerk 1999–2000. - The release identifies him as a Democrat. ### Justice Hanasono stresses clear, accessible opinions - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County - Reform California · voter guide · published undated · stance: oppose - Reform California, Carl DeMaio's conservative group, recommends DO NOT RETAIN for Hanasono, as it does for nearly every Second District justice, without stating reasons specific to him. - Hanasono: DO NOT RETAIN. - Of 32 Second District justices the guide lists, it recommends retaining three (Chavez, Rothschild, Yegan). ### Justice Mark K. Hanasono - California Courts of Appeal · other · published undated · stance: neutral - The court's official profile of Hanasono: Division Three associate justice since 2025, after 13 years as a Los Angeles County public defender and alternate public defender and nearly 12 years as a Superior Court criminal judge. - Deputy Public Defender 2000–2004; Alternate Public Defender 2004–2013, including capital cases, and a felony team leader. - Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court in 2013; Assistant Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division 2020–2022. - Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission; confirmed unanimously in June 2025. - Lecturer at UCLA School of Law; has published in legal journals. ### Published opinions by Mark Hanasono, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Census of Hanasono's published Court of Appeal opinions, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: two authored majority opinions, one criminal and one public-sector labor, and no dissents or concurrences. - 2 authored opinions; 0 separate opinions. - Case mix: a felony-murder resentencing appeal (People v. Taito) and a public-employee bargaining dispute (Trustees of CSU v. PERB). - Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished and are not counted. ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.