# Justice Kelli M. Evans *legal · California Supreme Court 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 2022 to 2026-10-10. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 22 sources) Kelli M. Evans has been an associate justice since 2023, appointed by Gov. Newsom after about a year on the Alameda County Superior Court; earlier she was Newsom's chief deputy legal affairs secretary and worked at the state Justice Department, the State Bar, the ACLU of Northern California, the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and as a public defender [Associate Justice Kelli Evans; Official Voter Information Guide: Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices on the ballot]. This is her first retention vote, for a 12-year term [Supreme Court justices on the ballot]. The State Bar's evaluators rated her 'well qualified' in 2022, one step below Justice Groban's rating [California Supreme Court justices: What you need to know]. Her collected majority opinions, all from 2024–25, read statutes broadly in favor of the party claiming a legal protection: a felony-murder accomplice, an injured cyclist, an injured worker, an employee called a racial slur, and parents and tribes owed an Indian-ancestry inquiry [Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office; In re Dezi C.; Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (S282264); Whitehead v. City of Oakland (S284303); People v. Emanuel (S280551)]. In dissent she would have widened mental health diversion and pressed claims of racial bias in capital cases [People v. Braden (S268925), with Evans dissent; People v. Frazier; People v. Aguirre (S175660), with Evans dissent]. GrowSF, cahighways.org, and the San Francisco Chronicle recommend retention, citing no discipline record [California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election; November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices; Yes or no? Here are the Chronicle's endorsements for California Supreme Court and appeals courts]. A PORAC-funded campaign joined by Crime Victims United urges a No vote, citing her dissents from denials of review in criminal cases, her short trial-court tenure, and her rating [No On Kelli Evans; California Supreme Court justices: What you need to know]. ### Record highlights - June 2025: wrote the unanimous People v. Emanuel opinion, the court's first SB 1437 felony-murder case. It vacated the murder conviction of a robbery accomplice who did not kill, finding no substantial evidence of reckless indifference to human life. [People v. Emanuel (S280551); CA Supreme Court orders resentencing in felony murder case] - May 2025: wrote the unanimous Whitehead v. City of Oakland opinion, holding a pre-ride release void to the extent it would excuse a city's negligent violation of its statutory duty to keep roads safe. [Whitehead v. City of Oakland (S284303)] - February 2025: wrote the unanimous Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club opinion, holding that a worker covered by state workers' compensation may still bring general maritime claims against his employer. [Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (S282264)] - August 2024: wrote the 5-2 In re Dezi C. majority requiring conditional reversal when an agency's initial inquiry into a child's possible Indian ancestry is inadequate; Justice Groban and Chief Justice Guerrero dissented. [In re Dezi C.] - July 2024: wrote the unanimous Bailey v. S.F. District Attorney's Office opinion, holding that a coworker's single use of the N-word can support a hostile-work-environment claim and that obstructing a harassment complaint can be retaliation. [Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office] - August 2025: dissented, with Justice Liu, in the capital case People v. Aguirre, arguing that a Black prospective juror was struck in violation of Batson/Wheeler. The majority reversed the death sentence on other grounds but otherwise affirmed. [People v. Aguirre (S175660), with Evans dissent] - August 2024: dissented in People v. Frazier from the denial of a death-row inmate's motion to pause his appeal and pursue a Racial Justice Act claim; the majority affirmed the death judgment. [People v. Frazier] - June 2023: dissented, with Justice Liu, in People v. Braden, arguing mental health diversion may be requested until judgment, not only before trial or plea. [People v. Braden (S268925), with Evans dissent] - 2024–25 term: per the opposition campaign, dissented 63 times from denials of review in criminal cases; cahighways.org relays that she and Justice Liu drove a doubling of such dissents. [No On Kelli Evans; November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - November 2022: confirmed unanimously by the Commission on Judicial Appointments; one commissioner called her move from a trial court to the high court his 'first and only concern.' [Kelli Evans confirmed as California Supreme Court justice; Commission confirms Judge Kelli Evans to California Supreme Court] ### Stated positions - In Emanuel she wrote that the test for an accomplice's reckless indifference turns on his mental state, 'not on the ultimate efficacy' of efforts to stop a partner's violence. [People v. Emanuel (S280551); CA Supreme Court orders resentencing in felony murder case] - In the Braden dissent she argued the Legislature meant diversion to keep mentally ill defendants out of incarceration and invited it to override the majority. [People v. Braden (S268925), with Evans dissent] - In Frazier she wrote that when the Legislature speaks clearly on racial bias, courts 'should heed its call.' [People v. Frazier] ### Where sources disagree - GrowSF (Sept. 10) found 'no organized campaign' against her; LAist (updated Oct. 21) reports a PORAC-funded No campaign launched late in the cycle. [California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election; California Supreme Court justices: What you need to know] - The opposition calls her dissents from denial of review attempts to 'reopen' cases; such votes do not themselves reopen or decide a case, and cahighways.org treats them as a philosophical divide rather than a reason to reject. [No On Kelli Evans; November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ### Gaps - None of her dissents from denial of review (the record the opposition cites) were collected, so the 63-dissent count and the People v. Gray statement are unverified here. - The State Bar JNE report itself could not be retrieved (the linked file had no text), so the reasons for her 'well qualified' rating are unknown. - No interviews, speeches, or questionnaire answers in her own voice. - No opinion collected from 2026, and none from her trial-court service. - The collected opinions all favor the party claiming a statutory protection; no sample shows her ruling against such a party, which may reflect the selection. - The 2025 police-complaint ruling the opposition cites (LAPPL v. City of Los Angeles) was not collected. ### Arguments for / praise - Retention elections are a check on misconduct, corruption, or incompetence, not on disagreement with rulings, and no discipline or red flags have been found. — *San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, Mary-Beth Moylan* [Yes or no? Here are the Chronicle's endorsements for California Supreme Court and appeals courts; Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans] - Retain a judge unless there is serious misconduct or poor judgment outside legal norms; she has no public discipline record. — *GrowSF* [California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election] - Her dissents on sentencing and racial disparities reflect a philosophical divide on the court, not a reason to reject her. — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - Her career has been 'marked by excellence' and commitment to due process and equal protection. — *State Bar JNE Commission (as quoted by the Judicial Council)* [Commission confirms Judge Kelli Evans to California Supreme Court] ### Arguments against / criticism - She repeatedly votes to reopen settled criminal cases, including violent ones, forcing victims' families back to court; the Chief Justice cast no such votes. — *PORAC, Crime Victims United* [No On Kelli Evans] - She had only about 10 months as a trial judge before nomination and a lower State Bar rating than five of her six colleagues. — *PORAC* [No On Kelli Evans] - She joined a 2025 ruling striking down a law warning that knowingly false complaints against police could be prosecuted. — *PORAC* [No On Kelli Evans] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Eight court opinions, June 2023 to August 2025, all with Justice Evans's own writing. Five are majorities she wrote: S2 People v. Emanuel (2025, felony murder), S3 Whitehead v. City of Oakland (2025, liability releases), S4 Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (2025, maritime law), S5 In re Dezi C. (2024, Indian Child Welfare Act, 5-2), and S7 Bailey v. S.F. District Attorney's Office (2024, workplace harassment). Four of the five were unanimous. Three are her dissents, each read in full: S1 People v. Aguirre (2025, jury-selection bias in a capital case, joined by Justice Liu), S6 People v. Frazier (2024, Racial Justice Act stay in a capital case, plus a separate concurrence on one issue), and S8 People v. Braden (2023, mental health diversion, joined by Justice Liu). For S1, S6 and S8 the input begins at her dissent, so the majority opinions she answers appear only as she describes them (S1 also carries some majority footnotes). S5 includes her full majority but is cut off partway through the dissent. Missing: no unscripted speech, interviews or oral-argument remarks, nothing from 2026, and none of her dissents from denial of review. Her method is purposive. She starts from the Legislature's stated aims, drawn from findings, committee analyses and floor reports, and reads the text to serve them: 'the fundamental task of courts is to determine the Legislature’s intent in order to effectuate the statute’s purpose' (S8). She also uses textual tools when they help, such as the surplusage canon in Whitehead (S3) and dictionary meaning in Braden (S8). She describes this as deference to the Legislature, not to the courts: 'Our job here is to interpret the law enacted by the Legislature, not to disagree with or second guess its policy choices' (S6). Her dissents show where she parts from the court's majority. She would give less deference to trial courts that did not actually do the required analysis (S1). She reads remedial criminal-justice statutes more broadly than the majority does: the Racial Justice Act (S6) and mental health diversion (S8). And she treats racial bias in the criminal system as a problem courts must actively police (S1, S6). Her majorities show the same pattern in civil and dependency cases (S3, S5, S7). In nearly every sample, the side invoking a statutory or constitutional protection prevailed or would have under her view. The one exception is in Frazier, where she agrees with the majority that a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment claim fails (S6). She works within precedent: she distinguishes or limits cases rather than overruling them, and she surveys other states and federal circuits (S3, S4, S7). On criminal justice and civil rights, the evidence supports describing her as consistently protective of defendants and claimants. The sample is too small and too selected to support a broader political label. Articulation: **strong**. All samples are prepared written opinions; there is no unscripted speech. Majorities state the question and holding up front and answer each argument in turn. They show close command of the record: in Emanuel she rebuilds the timeline to show the confrontation lasted about nine minutes (S2). The dissents are equally well organized and more specific. In Aguirre she points out that the struck Black juror was one of four engineers in the jury pool, and the only one the prosecutor called 'very precise' (S1). In Frazier she cites the backlog of capital habeas cases and the shortage of qualified counsel (S6). In Braden she works through the related statutes and cost figures from committee reports (S8). She answers the majority point by point and often concedes what she can before disagreeing: 'I do not disagree. However…' (S8). Her 'Like Justice Liu' opening (S1) shows she builds on colleagues' dissents rather than repeating them. Consistency: **strong**. From 2023 to 2025, majorities and dissents use the same method: find the statute's purpose in legislative materials, read the text to serve it, and check other jurisdictions. The dissents apply that method to criminal-justice statutes where a majority read them narrowly (S6, S8), and to constitutional jury-selection rules (S1). Her concern with racial bias appears in civil (S7), criminal (S1) and capital-sentencing (S6) contexts. Her Frazier concurrence, rejecting a defendant's Sixth Amendment claim (S6), and her deferential review standard for adequate ICWA inquiries (S5) show she does not rule for claimants in every case. But the sample includes no full opinion in which she rules against a party invoking a statutory protection. No reversals of her own stated positions appear. - Racial bias in jury selection (Batson/Wheeler): Dissenting, she would not defer to a trial court that accepted a prosecutor's race-neutral reasons without testing them. She also argues that prosecutor training materials teaching staff to build race-neutral justifications make deference riskier. - "It makes little sense to defer, as the majority opinion does (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 35), to an evaluation the trial court itself never made." [People v. Aguirre (S175660), with Evans dissent] (2025-08-28) - "Against this backdrop, where the prosecutor’s reasons for a strike were not self-evident and the record is void of any explication from the court, we should not defer." [People v. Aguirre (S175660), with Evans dissent] (2025-08-28) - Racial Justice Act claims in capital appeals: Dissenting, she would grant a death-row defendant's request to pause the appeal and return to the trial court with a racial-bias claim. She calls the habeas route the majority relies on 'illusory', given years-long delays in appointing counsel. - "rushing to affirm a death judgment in the face of a plausible claim of racial bias — when the Legislature has crafted a mechanism to resolve that claim of bias within the scope of the appeal itself — makes no sense as a matter of judicial economy." [People v. Frazier] (2024-08-05) - "For all these reasons, one can see that the remedy the majority has provided is an illusory one." [People v. Frazier] (2024-08-05) - Timing of mental health diversion: Dissenting, she would let trial courts grant diversion until judgment is entered, not only before trial or a plea. She cites the costs of incarceration and the realities of mental illness. - "But the more natural reading is that “until adjudication” means “until entry of judgment.”" [People v. Braden (S268925), with Evans dissent] (2023-06-05) - "This is not a decision that persons with serious mental illness may arrive at on a neat and tidy timeline." [People v. Braden (S268925), with Evans dissent] (2023-06-05) - Felony murder after SB 1437: A nonkiller is liable only on evidence of reckless indifference at the time of the crime. Joining a robbery, failing to stop a partner's sudden violence, or fleeing afterward is not enough by itself. - "it is not incumbent on a defendant to actually prevent the violence or attempt to do so by any means necessary." [People v. Emanuel (S280551)] (2025-06-02) - "This is precisely what Senate Bill No. 1437 and our case law prohibit." [People v. Emanuel (S280551)] (2025-06-02) - Liability releases and statutory safety duties: A signed release cannot excuse a city in advance from negligently breaking its statutory duty to keep public roads safe. - "Excluding the common law from the “law” referenced in section 1668 is the only construction that gives effect to all the words in the statute." [Whitehead v. City of Oakland (S284303)] (2025-05-01) - "To hold otherwise would substantially undermine the Legislature’s ability to protect the public." [Whitehead v. City of Oakland (S284303)] (2025-05-01) - Federal maritime law and state workers' compensation: Federal law takes away settled maritime injury claims only if it says so clearly, and California's rule that workers' compensation is the only remedy cannot override those federal claims. - "Had the LHWCA intended to abrogate general maritime remedies for every worker who was not an employee as defined in the act, one would expect to see that intent expressed more clearly." [Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (S282264)] (2025-02-27) - Workplace racial harassment: A coworker's single use of the N-word can be severe enough to create a hostile work environment. Courts judge severity by the full context, not by counting incidents or by the speaker's job title. - "we conclude that an isolated act of harassment may be actionable if it is sufficiently severe in light of the totality of the circumstances" [Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office] (2024-07-29) - "A rigid distinction between supervisors and coworkers fails to take into account the full context of the workplace." [Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office] (2024-07-29) - Indian Child Welfare Act inquiries: If the agency did not adequately ask relatives about Indian ancestry, the order terminating parental rights is set aside on condition so the inquiry can be done. The duty to inquire stays with agencies and courts, not parents. - "When there is an inadequate inquiry and the record is underdeveloped, it is impossible for reviewing courts to assess prejudice because we simply do not know what additional information will be revealed from an adequate inquiry." [In re Dezi C.] (2024-08-19) - "This contravenes the Legislature’s intent which, as evinced by section 224.2’s plain language and legislative history, is to impose the inquiry obligation on agencies and courts in order to increase compliance with ICWA." [In re Dezi C.] (2024-08-19) Limitations: Eight opinions chosen for availability cannot represent her whole record. Three of the eight are dissents, which overweights disagreement compared with her full caseload, and all three come from criminal cases. For the dissents, the majority's reasoning appears only as she describes it. Majority opinions reflect colleagues' agreement, so their wording may not be hers alone. Her dissents from denial of review, which commentators cite, are not sampled, and there is no unscripted speech. This analysis describes method and reasoning as shown in the texts; it does not predict future rulings. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-10** — Published: Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2026-10-10** — Chronicle endorsed retaining Evans and Groban (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2026-10-10** — Published: Yes or no? Here are the Chronicle's endorsements for California Supreme Court and appeals courts (San Francisco Chronicle) - **2026-10-10** — Editorial published (San Francisco Chronicle) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-10-01** — Published: California Supreme Court justices: What you need to know (LAist) - **2026-09-29** — Published: California voter guide 2026: Supreme Court (CalMatters) - **2026-09-28** — Published: Official Voter Information Guide: Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices on the ballot (California Secretary of State) - **2026-09-10** — Published: California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election (GrowSF) - **2026-07-21** — Published: Supreme Court justices on the ballot (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2026-06** — Evans voted to grant review in People v. Chang, S296486 (per the site) (PORAC (No On Kelli Evans campaign)) - **2026-04** — Evans voted to grant review in People v. Grandberry, S295461 (per the site) (PORAC (No On Kelli Evans campaign)) - **2026** — PORAC-funded PAC launched a 'No On Kelli Evans' campaign (per LAist) (LAist) - **2025-08-28** — Published: People v. Aguirre (S175660), with Evans dissent (Counsel Stack) - **2025-08-28** — Opinion filed in People v. Aguirre; Evans dissent (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2025-06-04** — Published: CA Supreme Court orders resentencing in felony murder case (CalMatters) - **2025-06-02** — Published: People v. Emanuel (S280551) (FindLaw) - **2025-06-02** — Supreme Court decided People v. Emanuel (opinion by Evans) (CalMatters) - **2025-06-02** — Opinion filed in People v. Emanuel (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2025-06-02** — Published: People v. Emanuel (S280551) official slip opinion (California Courts) - **2025-05-01** — Published: Whitehead v. City of Oakland (S284303) (FindLaw) - **2025-05-01** — Opinion filed in Whitehead v. City of Oakland (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2025-02-27** — Published: Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (S282264) (Justia) - **2025-02-27** — Opinion filed in Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2025** — Evans statement in People v. Gray (B330525) calling the outcome a possible 'miscarriage of justice' (per the site) (PORAC (No On Kelli Evans campaign)) - **2024-08-19** — Published: In re Dezi C. (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2024-08-19** — Opinion filed in In re Dezi C. (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2024-08-05** — Published: People v. Frazier (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2024-08-05** — Opinion filed in People v. Frazier; Evans dissent (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2024-07-29** — Published: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2024-07-29** — Opinion filed in Bailey v. S.F. District Attorney's Office (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2023-07-17** — Published: California Medical Association v. Aetna Health of California (S269212) (Justia) - **2023-06-05** — Published: People v. Braden (S268925), with Evans dissent (Supreme Court of California) - **2023-06-05** — Opinion filed in People v. Braden; Evans dissent (Supreme Court of California) - **2023** — Became Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court (California Secretary of State) - **2022-11-10** — Published: Kelli Evans confirmed as California Supreme Court justice (The Recorder (Law.com)) - **2022-11-10** — Confirmation hearing and vote (The Recorder (Law.com)) - **2022-11-10** — Published: Commission confirms Judge Kelli Evans to California Supreme Court (California Courts Newsroom) - **2022-11-10** — Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed Evans to the Supreme Court (California Courts Newsroom) - **2022-08-14** — Published: The governor should nominate Judge Evans now, not appoint her later (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2022-08-10** — Newsom announced his intent to appoint Evans to the Supreme Court (Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern)) - **2022-01** — Juvenile court terminated parental rights (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2022** — Published: JNE Commission report on Kelli Evans (2022) (State Bar Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation) - **2021** — Became Alameda County Superior Court judge (California Secretary of State) - **2018-12-20** — Emanuel filed resentencing petition (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2018-08-28** — Ranger injured while mooring a club vessel (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2017-03** — Whitehead injured on Skyline Boulevard, Oakland (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2015-05** — Emanuel convicted of first degree felony murder (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2015-01-22** — Coworker incident giving rise to the suit (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2009** — Trial and jury selection in Orange County (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **2003-05-13** — Murder of Kathleen Loreck (Hall Approved (CourtListener data)) - **1986** — Voters unseated three justices over death-penalty records (per CalMatters) (CalMatters) ## Sources ### Chronicle endorses Justices Groban and Evans - Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern) · endorsement · published 2026-10-10 · stance: support - At the Lectern reports that the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board recommends a Yes vote on Evans and Groban. - Quotes the Chronicle: removal efforts 'should not be undertaken lightly,' and absent 'reported issues' it recommends yes on all justices on the ballot. - Reference: Chronicle editorial ### Yes or no? Here are the Chronicle's endorsements for California Supreme Court and appeals courts - San Francisco Chronicle · endorsement · published 2026-10-10 · stance: support - San Francisco Chronicle editorial recommending Yes on Evans, Groban, and all First and Sixth District appellate justices, on the view that retention votes are a check on misconduct, not on disagreement with rulings. - The board found no Commission on Judicial Performance discipline and 'no red flags' for Evans or Groban. - It quotes law professor Mary-Beth Moylan that retention votes are a check on incompetence, corruption, or unethical behavior, not on disliking a judge's opinions. - It notes the last non-retention was 1986, after a campaign against three justices over the death penalty. ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - Personal ballot analysis by blogger Daniel Faigin recommending Retain (Yes) on Evans. His discussion is drawn, by his own account, from a Google AI search. - Faigin reports no ethical scandals or discipline and a 'well qualified' rating. - He relays that some Latino advocacy groups criticized the 2022 appointment for leaving the court with one Latina justice. - He relays that Evans and Justice Liu drove a doubling of dissents from denial of review in criminal cases in the 2024–25 term, and that she has written about racial disparities (citing People v. Barrera). - He concludes: 'None of these seem to be a reason to reject.' ### California Supreme Court justices: What you need to know - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - LAist voter guide to the Supreme Court retention races. It notes a late PORAC-funded 'No On Kelli Evans' effort and lists her 2022 State Bar rating as 'well qualified' against Groban's 'exceptionally well qualified.' - LAist reports a political action committee funded by the Peace Officers Research Association of California launched a 'No On Kelli Evans' effort late in the cycle; it found no formal opposition to Groban. - State Bar (JNE) rating at confirmation: Evans 'Well qualified' (2022); Groban 'Exceptionally well qualified' (2018). - LAist frames the vote as 'largely about sending a signal' since justices are rarely removed, and points voters to the court's free online opinions. - Reference: No On Kelli Evans campaign site - Reference: Evans JNE report - Reference: Court opinions search - Reference: Certified list of candidates ### California voter guide 2026: Supreme Court - CalMatters · voter guide · published 2026-09-29 · stance: neutral - CalMatters' 2026 voter-guide page on Supreme Court retention, with a short profile of Evans. - Retention votes are yes/no; justices cannot campaign and voters do not pick a replacement. - CalMatters says voters have ousted justices only once, in 1986. - Profile: Newsom appointed Evans in 2022; she was his chief deputy on legal affairs and has worked as a civil rights attorney, public defender, and State Bar senior director. - Reference: Court biography of Justice Evans ### Official Voter Information Guide: Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices on the ballot - California Secretary of State · voter guide · published 2026-09-28 · stance: neutral - The Secretary of State's official statement of qualifications for Justice Evans: education, bar admission, legal career, and judicial service. It lists facts only; it contains no evaluation or argument. - J.D., UC Davis School of Law, 1994; B.A., Stanford, 1991; admitted to the bar in 1994. - Judicial service: Alameda County Superior Court judge 2021–2022; Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court 2023–present. - Prior posts: Chief Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary to Gov. Newsom (2019–2021); Special Assistant Attorney General, California DOJ (2017–2019); Senior Director, Administration of Justice, State Bar (2014–2017). - Earlier work: federal court monitor (N.D. Cal. 2003–2010; N.D. Ohio 2015–2017); Relman & Associates (2001–2004); senior trial attorney, U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division (1998–2001); ACLU of Northern California (1995–1998, 2010–2013); Sacramento County assistant public defender (1995). ### California Supreme Court Retention — November 2026 Election - GrowSF · voter guide · published 2026-09-10 · stance: support - GrowSF recommends Yes on retaining Evans (and Groban) under its rule of retaining judges absent serious misconduct or poor judgment outside legal norms. - GrowSF found neither justice in the Commission on Judicial Performance public discipline record and 'no organized campaign against either of them' as of September 10, 2026. - Reference: Commission on Judicial Performance discipline decisions ### Supreme Court justices on the ballot - Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern) · third party analysis · published 2026-07-21 · stance: neutral - At the Lectern (Horvitz & Levy) note that Evans and Groban are on the November 2026 ballot, each seeking a 12-year term; it is Evans's first retention vote. - Evans's appointed term expires January 2027; she seeks a full 12-year term. - Author David Ettinger repeats his view that she should have been on the ballot in 2022. - Reference: SoS justices' terms and elections info - Reference: 2022 post arguing Evans should have been nominated ### People v. Aguirre (S175660), with Evans dissent - Counsel Stack · court opinion · published 2025-08-28 · stance: not_applicable - ### People v. Aguirre (S175660), with Evans dissent - Hall Approved (CourtListener data) · court opinion · published 2025-08-28 · stance: not_applicable - People v. Aguirre, a capital appeal: the majority (Guerrero, C.J.) reversed the death judgment and gang findings under AB 333 but otherwise affirmed. Evans, joined by Liu, dissented, arguing the whole judgment should fall because a Black prospective juror was struck in violation of Batson/Wheeler. - Evans says the trial court only asked whether 'any race neutral grounds' existed rather than making a 'sincere and reasoned effort,' so deference was unwarranted. - She surveys public-domain prosecutor training materials from Orange County and other counties advising reliance on 'gut' instinct, 'multiple reasons,' and 'cheat sheet' lists of race-neutral justifications. - She notes the prosecutor called the struck Black juror's engineering job 'very precise' while seating two engineers and an engineering student. - She criticizes the court for repeatedly deferring to trial courts despite significant evidence that deference was unjustified. ### CA Supreme Court orders resentencing in felony murder case - CalMatters · news · published 2025-06-04 · stance: neutral - CalMatters report on People v. Emanuel, the court's first SB 1437 felony-murder case, in which Evans wrote the unanimous opinion ordering resentencing of an accomplice who did not kill. - The court held Emanuel's conduct did not show 'reckless indifference to human life' and reversed both lower courts. - The article quotes Evans: participation in a 'garden-variety armed robbery' is insufficient without more, and the focus should be on what the defendant's actions reveal about his mental state. - The court noted Emanuel told his partner 'let's go' and walked away, and that the planned robbery was unarmed and in daylight in a public park. - Reference: Opinion PDF - Reference: SB 1437 text ### People v. Emanuel (S280551) - FindLaw · court opinion · published 2025-06-02 · stance: not_applicable - ### People v. Emanuel (S280551) - Hall Approved (CourtListener data) · court opinion · published 2025-06-02 · stance: not_applicable - Evans's unanimous opinion in People v. Emanuel, the court's first interpretation of the felony-murder rule as narrowed by SB 1437. It holds the evidence insufficient that a nonkiller robbery participant acted with 'reckless indifference to human life' and orders his murder conviction vacated. - The opinion applies the Banks and Clark factors and stresses that participation in a 'garden-variety armed robbery' is not enough by itself. - It faults the lower courts for requiring Emanuel to do more to stop the shooter: the question is his mental state, 'not on the ultimate efficacy of his actions.' - Weighing for Emanuel: the planned robbery was unarmed, in a public park in daylight; he did not know his partner had a gun; he said 'let's go' and walked away when the victim resisted. - Flight and later efforts to avoid arrest were found ambiguous and 'too attenuated' to show his mental state at the time of the shooting. - It declines to reach his youth argument because it was not raised below. ### People v. Emanuel (S280551) official slip opinion - California Courts · court opinion · published 2025-06-02 · stance: not_applicable - ### Whitehead v. City of Oakland (S284303) - FindLaw · court opinion · published 2025-05-01 · stance: not_applicable - ### Whitehead v. City of Oakland (S284303) - Hall Approved (CourtListener data) · court opinion · published 2025-05-01 · stance: not_applicable - Evans's unanimous opinion in Whitehead v. City of Oakland holding that a pre-ride liability release is void under Civil Code section 1668 to the extent it would excuse a city's negligent violation of its statutory duty to keep roads safe. - A cyclist injured by a pothole during a charity training ride sued Oakland under Government Code section 835; lower courts enforced his signed release under the Tunkl test. - The court holds Tunkl governs common-law negligence releases, while section 1668's 'violation of law' bars releases of statutory safety duties; reading 'law' to include common law would make other words in the statute surplus. - It rejects the City's warnings of 'dire consequences' as unsupported by empirical evidence and notes the City already owes the duty to every road user. - It expressly leaves open whether every statutory violation is covered and leaves primary assumption of risk for remand. - Justice Kruger concurred separately. ### Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (S282264) - Justia · court opinion · published 2025-02-27 · stance: not_applicable - ### Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (S282264) - Hall Approved (CourtListener data) · court opinion · published 2025-02-27 · stance: not_applicable - Evans's unanimous opinion in Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club holding that a yacht-club worker covered by state workers' compensation may still sue his employer under general maritime law for negligence and unseaworthiness. - The 1984 LHWCA amendments, which exclude club workers covered by state workers' comp from the federal scheme, do not 'speak directly' to abrogating general maritime remedies. - Under the supremacy clause, California's workers' compensation exclusive-remedy provision cannot displace substantive federal maritime rights. - The opinion rejects an Eleventh Circuit interest-balancing approach (Brockington), resolving a split between Courts of Appeal in favor of Freeze v. Lost Isle Partners. - It assumes, without deciding, that admiralty jurisdiction applies. ### In re Dezi C. - Hall Approved (CourtListener data) · court opinion · published 2024-08-19 · stance: not_applicable - Evans's 5-2 majority opinion in In re Dezi C. holding that a child welfare agency's inadequate initial inquiry into possible Indian ancestry under California's ICWA law requires conditional reversal of an order terminating parental rights. - Social workers spoke with grandparents and other relatives but never asked about Indian ancestry; the court treats this as a deficient Cal-ICWA inquiry. - Because prejudice cannot be assessed on an undeveloped record, the remedy is conditional reversal: the agency must inquire and document, and the judgment is reinstated if ICWA does not apply. - The opinion rejects a rule requiring parents to show a 'reason to believe' the child is Indian, saying the Legislature placed the inquiry duty on agencies and courts. - Justice Kruger (with Corrigan) concurred; Justice Groban (with Chief Justice Guerrero) dissented, stressing prompt permanency for dependent children. ### People v. Frazier - Hall Approved (CourtListener data) · court opinion · published 2024-08-05 · stance: not_applicable - People v. Frazier, a capital appeal: the majority (Guerrero, C.J.) affirmed the death judgment and denied a motion to stay the appeal for a Racial Justice Act claim. Evans dissented from the stay denial and wrote separately on a capital defendant's control of mitigating evidence. - Frazier's expert reported that Contra Costa homicides with White victims were twice as likely to draw a death sentence; the victim was White. - Evans argues habeas is an 'illusory' remedy given yearslong delays in appointing capital habeas counsel, citing her own Wilson dissent. - She argues the Legislature created the stay-and-remand procedure in 2023 precisely for such defendants, and that the majority's delay serves neither victims' right to a prompt conclusion nor judicial economy. - She agrees with the majority that counsel's presenting mitigation over Frazier's tactical objections did not violate the Sixth Amendment, but flags the unresolved question of purely personal objections. - Justice Liu joined the RJA portion of her dissent. ### Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office - Hall Approved (CourtListener data) · court opinion · published 2024-07-29 · stance: not_applicable - Evans's unanimous opinion in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office holding that a coworker's single use of the N-word can create a triable hostile-work-environment claim under FEHA, and that obstructing an employee's harassment complaint can be actionable retaliation. - An isolated act of harassment may be actionable if sufficiently severe 'in light of the totality of the circumstances'; no 'magic number' of slurs is required. - The court rejects treating the speaker's status (supervisor vs. coworker) as dispositive, calling it one circumstance among many. - It disapproves reading Aguilar to bar claims based on an isolated racial epithet. - An HR manager's course of conduct that effectively withdrew the employee's means of reporting harassment may be an adverse employment action. - Summary judgment for the City was reversed. ### California Medical Association v. Aetna Health of California (S269212) - Justia · court opinion · published 2023-07-17 · stance: not_applicable - ### People v. Braden (S268925), with Evans dissent - Supreme Court of California · court opinion · published 2023-06-05 · stance: not_applicable - People v. Braden: the court (Corrigan, J., for five justices) held that mental health diversion must be requested before jeopardy attaches or a plea is entered. Evans, joined by Liu, dissented, arguing the statute's 'until adjudication' means until entry of judgment. - Evans reads 'adjudication' by its dictionary meaning ('judgment') and argues the majority picked two inconsistent points in the process. - She relies on legislative history: the statute's purpose is to divert mentally ill defendants from incarceration, not merely from trial. - She cites costs (about $20,000 a year for treatment vs. $106,000 for prison) and calls the majority 'penny wise but pound foolish.' - She notes Braden, who has schizophrenia, represented himself and asked for diversion promptly once counsel was appointed. - She invites the Legislature to clarify that 'until adjudication' means until entry of judgment. ### Kelli Evans confirmed as California Supreme Court justice - The Recorder (Law.com) · news · published 2022-11-10 · stance: neutral - Law.com (The Recorder) report on Evans's confirmation; only the headline and teaser are visible, the article is paywalled. - Evans was approved unanimously and described as the first openly LGBTQ woman on the court. - The teaser says commissioners questioned her about moving from a trial court directly to the high court; Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez called the transition his 'first and only concern.' ### Commission confirms Judge Kelli Evans to California Supreme Court - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2022-11-10 · stance: neutral - Judicial Council news release announcing the Commission on Judicial Appointments' unanimous confirmation of Evans to the seat vacated by Patricia Guerrero's elevation to Chief Justice. - The three-member commission (Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Bonta, Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez) voted unanimously. - It quotes the State Bar JNE Commission report: her 28-year career 'has been marked by excellence and a demonstrated commitment to ensuring that all individuals receive due process and equal protection under the law.' - Includes a career summary (Alameda County judge since 2021; Newsom legal affairs office; DOJ; State Bar; ACLU NorCal; DOJ Civil Rights Division; public defender) and a personal background note. ### The governor should nominate Judge Evans now, not appoint her later - Horvitz & Levy (At the Lectern) · third party analysis · published 2022-08-14 · stance: not_applicable - Horvitz & Levy's David Ettinger argued in 2022 that the Constitution required Gov. Newsom to nominate Evans (putting her on the 2022 ballot) rather than appoint her (putting her first vote in 2026). It concerns the governor's procedure, not her qualifications. - The author reads Article VI, section 16(d)(1) to require a nomination by September 16 once Justice Guerrero withdrew her declaration of candidacy. - He calls the Governor's contrary reading 'not unreasonable' but wrong, and says the provision 'could stand some revision.' - The practical effect of the appointment route is that Evans's first retention vote is 2026, not 2022. - Reference: Governor's announcement - Reference: Cal. Const. art. VI, § 16 ### JNE Commission report on Kelli Evans (2022) - State Bar Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation · bar evaluation · published 2022 · stance: neutral - ### Liu and Evans drive surge in Supreme Court dissents over criminal review denials - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Associate Justice Kelli Evans - Supreme Court of California · official text · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The Supreme Court's official biography of Justice Evans, summarizing her career and awards. - Before the Supreme Court she was an Alameda County Superior Court judge hearing criminal and civil matters. - She was Chief Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary to Gov. Newsom and earlier Special Assistant to the Attorney General focused on criminal justice, public safety, and civil rights. - Earlier roles: State Bar senior director for the administration of justice, ACLU of Northern California associate director, U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division senior trial attorney, Sacramento County assistant public defender, and member of federal court monitoring teams for the Oakland and Cleveland police departments. - She serves on the California Commission on Access to Justice; awards listed include Judge of the Year and the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service. ### No On Kelli Evans - PORAC (No On Kelli Evans campaign) · other · published undated · stance: oppose - Campaign site urging a No vote on Evans, run by peace officers (PORAC) with Crime Victims United. It argues she favors reopening settled criminal cases and is less experienced and lower-rated than her colleagues. - Claims she 'went on record 63 times' in the 2024–25 term to reopen criminal cases (its source: dissents from denial of review), versus zero by the Chief Justice. - Cites her 2025 statement in People v. Gray (B330525) calling a 1981 murder's outcome a possible 'miscarriage of justice,' and her votes to grant review in People v. Grandberry (S295461) and People v. Chang (S296486). - Says she joined a ruling striking down a law warning that knowingly false complaints against officers could be prosecuted (LAPPL v. City of Los Angeles, S275272, 2025). - Argues she had only 10 months as a trial judge before nomination and a lower State Bar rating than five of her six colleagues. - Includes statements from crime victim relatives Eric Carlson and Harriet Salarno (Crime Victims United). ## 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.