California’s judiciary plays a critical role in shaping the lives of its residents. Yet, despite Latinos making up nearly 40% of the state’s population, they remain significantly underrepresented on the bench. We had a Q&A with Gabriella Carmona, a senior research analyst at LPPI and lead author of Balancing the Bench: Examining the Representation of Latinas and Latinos in the Judiciary of California, a new report showing that this alarming gap is more than a numbers issue—it affects trust in the legal system, judicial decision-making, and access to justice. In this conversation, Gabriella discusses the barriers preventing Latinos from joining the judiciary, the consequences of underrepresentation, and the reforms needed to build a more inclusive bench.

Question: Why does a representative judiciary matter, and what are the consequences of Latino underrepresentation?  

Gabriella: A judiciary that reflects its communities, fosters trust, and ensures equal protection under the law. Judges shape decisions on issues like healthcare, employment, and immigration—areas directly impacting Latinos. When Latinos are underrepresented, key perspectives may be missing, making it harder to ensure fair outcomes for all Californians.

Q: What steps can be taken to remove systemic barriers preventing Latinos from entering the judiciary?  

Gabriella: Access—not just talent—is the issue. Many Latinos lack opportunities like clerkships, judicial mentorship, and private practice experience due to systemic gatekeeping. Expanding legal mentorship programs, diversity-focused clerkships, and law school internships can help. Judges on the bench today often credit mentorship for their success—such support must become institutionalized, not left to chance.

Q: How does judicial diversity impact decision-making and public trust?  

Gabriella: Diverse benches don’t just look different—they think differently. Judges bring their lived experiences to the law, influencing deliberations and rulings. Research shows that diversity leads to more nuanced judicial discussions, which can make courts more responsive to the real-world challenges of the people they serve. Additionally, when Californians see themselves reflected on the bench, they are more likely to trust the legal system.

Q: How does this issue connect to broader Latino underrepresentation in government?  

Gabriella: Latinos face systemic barriers to leadership across California, as LPPI’s 2022 report on gubernatorial appointments revealed. They are often excluded due to a lack of access to networks, limited awareness of opportunities, and financial constraints. When Latinos are absent from key decision-making spaces, policies are less likely to reflect their needs.

Q: Governor Newsom has made progress in diversifying the bench. How can future administrations build on this momentum?  

Gabriella: Newsom’s success in appointing Latino judges came from intentional policies, transparency, and outreach. His decision to publicize Judicial Selection Advisory Committees (JSACs) for the very first time and prioritize a diverse applicant pool has made a difference. Future administrations should institutionalize these efforts— increasing public awareness about the appointment process and embedding demographic equity into state law. Judicial diversity should not depend on who holds office; it should be a lasting commitment.

Q: What role should legislators, bar associations, and community organizations play in advancing judicial diversity?  

Gabriella: Change requires collective action. Legislators should work to enshrine diversity goals into the state law that guides the judicial appointment process. Bar associations must elevate underrepresented candidates and collaborate with government partners. Community organizations should hold decision-makers accountable for a transparent and inclusive selection process. Law schools and philanthropic institutions must invest in mentorship, clerkships, and financial support to build a pipeline of diverse legal professionals. Judicial representation cannot change in isolation—everyone must step up.

Read the full report here.