For decades, I have been proud to advocate for the Latino community here in Davis and throughout Yolo County. My goal has always been simple: to ensure our voices are heard and that the institutions serving us reflect the people they represent. When the race for Yolo County Superior Court Judge began, I initially threw my support behind Ryan Davis. He is a dedicated public servant, and I respect his work.
After meeting Diane Ortiz, however, I walked away with a profound sense of clarity. Sometimes, it only takes one conversation with a candidate to realize they possess the specific temperament and vision our community needs. She is incredible. She is bi-lingual in Spanish as well as bi-cultural in serving all of Yolo County. After reflecting on her professional history and the current makeup of our judiciary, I have officially switched my support to Diane Ortiz. I am writing today to encourage my neighbors and fellow activists to do the same.
The reason for my shift is twofold: Diane’s exceptional qualifications and the urgent need for a more representative bench.
Diane Ortiz is a seasoned Deputy District Attorney with a career defined by a deep understanding of the law and a heart for the community. While I am just beginning to get to know her personally, her reputation precedes her. She has spent years investigating the “why” behind the legal data, specifically regarding disparities in the Latino community. Whether it is her work on DUI trends or her commitment to making the legal process transparent for those who feel alienated by it, Diane’s track record proves she possesses the cultural humility required of a modern judge. She understands that justice isn’t just about statutes—it is about people.
Furthermore, we must address the reality of representation. For years, we have talked about the need for a bench that looks like Yolo County. While we have made some strides, Latinas remain significantly underrepresented in our judiciary. As a community, we often say that “representation matters,” but those words only carry weight if we act on them when a candidate of this caliber steps forward.
I recently read Norb Kumagai’s piece in the Vanguard regarding the need for a diverse bench, and his arguments resonated deeply with me. When a candidate as qualified and dedicated as Diane Ortiz enters the race, it is not enough to simply offer her a polite nod. We need to get behind her with our full energy.
Diane understands the challenges facing hardworking families in Yolo County because she has spent her career protecting them. Having her on the bench will increase public trust in our legal system for those who have historically felt like outsiders in their own courthouse.
Ryan Davis is a good man, but Diane Ortiz is the right choice for this specific moment in Yolo County’s history. We have a rare opportunity to elect a judge who combines top-tier legal expertise with a lived experience that is desperately needed.
I am proud to stand with Diane Ortiz, and I urge you to join me in supporting her candidacy. Let’s ensure our local bench reflects the strength and diversity of the community it serves.
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“Ryan Davis is a good man”
He’s well qualified too, but he’s white and a male.
It’s racist to vote for someone based on skin color. And yet, some people are using it as a “safe harbor” selling point these days.
This is the second article in as many days suggesting that voters support someone based on skin color.
Ironically, the previous article was written by an Asian person, despite the fact that Asians are the group that would suffer most regarding Affirmative Action at Universities, etc. (The same group that was accused of using “white supremacy” to get ahead at San Francisco’s premier public high school.)
Apparently, white supremacy isn’t limited to whites these days.
I’m not seeing this piece suggest that voters support someone based on skin color.
Really? It’s implied throughout the article (as well as sexism). Took me all of 2 seconds to find the first one that stood out:
Latinas remain significantly underrepresented in our judiciary. As a community, we often say that “representation matters,” but those words only carry weight if we act on them when a candidate of this caliber steps forward.
By the way, Woodland itself seems significantly “under-represented” regarding black people (to the point where I actually notice a black person). Are Latino people “speaking up” on behalf of THAT group? Something tells me that they are not (and that it has nothing to do with “white” people).
Perhaps this “person of color” category (that includes everyone EXCEPT white people, and white males in particular) is an opportunistic, racist AND sexist appeal to voters who shouldn’t even be allowed to vote, if that’s the criteria they’re buying into.
How about these mofo candidates talk specifically about what they’d do “differently”, instead?
There was a time only a few years ago, less than five, where there were only two women and one Latina on the bench, it seems like diversity is an issue. But pointing out the need for diversity is not telling someone to vote for someone because of skin color.
That said, I think you guys are so focused on race that you are losing sight that this is a contest between a prosecutor and a public defender, one who represented death penalty defendants in appellate cases.
One of the candidates is backed by the county’s public defender, the other is based by the DA.
But pointing out the need for diversity is not telling someone to vote for someone because of skin color.
It’s EXACTLY the same thing.
“That said, I think you guys are so focused on race that you are losing sight that this is a contest between a prosecutor and a public defender, one who represented death penalty defendants in appellate cases.”
“One of the candidates is backed by the county’s public defender, the other is based by the DA.”
There’s your “actual” difference (which I didn’t know, since I rarely pay attention to elections for judges.) So we have one candidate who supports the law, and one who doesn’t. (Yes – a joke, sort of.) But it sure would have been more useful if the actual difference had been made clear.
There are lots of Latinos and Latinas who are quite conservative regarding crime, etc.
And there’s lots of white male and female dufuses (maybe even more of them by percentage) who would prefer to set criminals free to wreak havoc on society. (Yes, a joke again – sort of.)
So the skin color/sex thing is irrelevant.
One sets criminals free, the other doesn’t (to grossly over-simplify the issue).
It’s not the exact same thing.
There is a big difference between saying vote for a candidate because they are Latina and saying that diversity on the bench matters. We seem to have reached a point where the mere mentions of race or identity is interpreted as exclusivity or “single-issue voting even when the argument is actually about systemic representation + lived experience + communication ability.
You must be kidding. Believe me, it’s not Ron and I who are so focused on race.
Then why is it that you and Ron are always pushing back when race is mentioned?
“Then why is it that you and Ron are always pushing back when race is mentioned?”
Because the articles themselves focus on it, as a reason to support a candidate. And conversely, to NOT support a candidate based on skin color or sex.
You couldn’t figure that out on your own?
But again, your comment points out the REAL difference between the candidates (which has nothing to do with skin color or sex, and may actually have an INVERSE relationship to it regarding political views/goals while serving as a judge for example).
These days, it seems more likely that a significant percentage of “white” people are the ones who want to set criminals free, compared to Latinos/Latinas.
The Latino/Latina people I’ve met are generally more conservative that I am, I suspect.
I think the person who’s most qualified should get the job regardless of sex or race. I’m sure Ron feels the same way. That’s the exact opposite of making it about race.
How does one determine who is most qualified? What factors come into play? And do you take into account the workplace make up?
David says:
“I’m not seeing this piece suggest that voters support someone based on skin color.”
I’m still amazed that you wrote that.
I’m not amazed that you’re amazed
What factors come into play?
Pretty much the only one in this case is the one you pointed out (a public defender, vs. someone supported by the DA).
Which, by the way is YOUR “single issue”. The same one that the IRS took exception with.
The skin color/sex thing in this case is a sideshow (and a naked attempt by the authors of the last couple of articles to exploit it). Though I will acknowledge that I sometimes wonder just how dumb some voters are, if they fall for that.
Perhaps the same ones who think the Kardashians are important. (Never mind – the people who think so probably don’t even vote – though they are allowed to do so and to procreate, drive, etc.).
Actually just pointing out the biggest difference between two otherwise very qualified candidates
Qualifications do not seem to be the issue, here. If you pass the bar exam, you’re qualified.
It’s beliefs/values/goals that are the issue, here (not skin color, sex, or qualifications).
Background in this case does matter (one defending criminals, the other I presume did not).
These days, some public defenders have become prosecutors (but most of them have been summarily tossed-out by voters as a result). Turns out that we don’t want “both sides” to be defenders of criminals.
It does appear that the days of “I’m sowwy – I didn’t realize that hitting you over the head and taking your money impacted you” (regarding restorative justice) aren’t working.
“Qualifications do not seem to be the issue, here. If you pass the bar exam, you’re qualified.”
In a very technical sense perhaps, but realistically someone who passed the bar would not be qualified to be judge.
It would be great to learn some actual differences between the candidates in this race with respect to policies, judgment, etc. I don’t really know how people voting in this race will make their decisions, given that we know basically nothing about either candidate with respect to judicial temperament, guiding philosophies about crime and punishment, etc. Is there going to be a debate?
THere might be a debate, but they actually can’t weigh in on things like policies.
Sure they can – “I’ll let criminals go free”, vs. “I’ll lock them up”.
Actually, they don’t even need to engage in a debate – background is probably sufficient for voters to make a decision.
I’m sorry I forgot you have to have been a member of the bar for 10 years
I already figured out the “correct” answer (regarding who to support) from your clarifying comment, now that we got that other race/sex stuff out of the way.
Though I will say that if you and candidates like this ever figure out how to make “I’m sowwy for the pain I caused” work, I’ll reconsider it.
Sort of like Trump trying to get the Iranian government to stop causing problems. (They probably just didn’t know that unprovoked killing/killing of people in Israel, or killing their own citizens is a bad thing. Pretty sure that a couple of sessions of restorative justice would clear that right up.)
It’s pretty simplistic of David to say that Ryan Davis is just a former public defender. He is also a former Attorney General, a law professor and currently serves as a commissioner in Sacramento where he does the work of a judge in family law and civil matters. He is endorsed by law enforcement, attorneys, legal professors, and a large amount of judges. Diane Ortiz has only ever been DA. And since she’s running in Yolo County where she is a current DA, If she gets elected she will not sit in a criminal department, she will have too many conflicts. So when you’re looking at who to be voting for, you should be looking at their qualifications beyond that she’s a DA. Ryan Davis has a lot more experience, has been on both sides between attorney general and public defender, is a yolo county native, and is better qualified. I’d encourage people to look into candidates more.