Prosecutor, Democrat, City Attorney? McKinney Makes His Case to Los Angeles Voters
ELECTION 2026 – The race for LA City Attorney has been laced with political accusations and allegations that when closely examined do not address the qualifications needed to successfully run this office in an effective fashion.
John McKinney and Marissa Roy are both Democrats, with nothing to suggest otherwise.
What is different is the path each candidate has taken to get to where they are today.
McKinney graduated from Passaic High School, in Passaic, New Jersey, received an associate degree from Passaic County Community College and a bachelor’s degree from Rutgers, the state university. He then relocated to Los Angeles and graduated from the UCLA School of Law.
In contrast, Roy graduated from Flintridge Preparatory School and earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California (USC) and Yale Law School.
The path to this contest is one of public-school education in McKinney versus private school scholarship and Ivy League pedigree in Roy, the progressive and DSA endorsed choice.
For McKinney his background best reflects one of challenge, hardship and struggle as he lost his parents at an early age and was raised by his sister in a low income, urban environment where crime and drugs were obstacles to attaining the American Dream.
Nevertheless, McKinney believes his background best reflects most LA residents and voters and can best identify the issues of poverty, homelessness and affordability in these difficult times.
A dividing line in this campaign made by Roy is that Mckinney is somehow a candidate of Donald Trump and MAGA.
McKinney, 58 countered by stating he was a registered Democrat “before she (Roy) was born.”
He dismisses the accusation with a high degree of passion and conviction.
“I voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I know Donald Trump from his days in Atlantic City. He’s a phony and a fraud. This is an office that will run above politics.”
McKinney noted that he has managed over 300 lawyers and staff. Has been responsible for budgeting as well as collective bargaining, recruitment, hiring, and firing. He wants to want to reduce legal payouts, increase morale, and address animal cruelty by creating a task force that protects pets from such abuse.
McKinney is a supporter of Municipal Code 41.18, a legal tool to discourage homeless encampments in safe spaces such as schools and churches. He supports court ordered treatment of the unhoused and sees homelessness as a solvable problem with the right strategies and policies.
The longtime DA believes his courtroom success makes him the better choice.
McKinney has litigated over 100 jury trials to verdict with a 97% success rate including 40 murder trials, all leading to convictions. Based on his experience, McKinney believes he has the right resume to tackle some 3,000 lawsuits currently against the City of Los Angeles.
The candidate was generous with his time as we spoke for over an hour, and here are his answers to the questions posed to him.
The election is Tuesday, November 3rd:
Below is our extensive Q&A:
You have a proven background as a prosecutor. How many criminal cases have you personally tried before a jury, and how many resulted in convictions?
“I have personally tried more than 100 criminal cases before juries, with a conviction rate of approximately 97%. That includes murder prosecutions in which every defendant I tried was convicted. Those cases required careful preparation, sound judgment, and the ability to earn a jury’s trust. But convictions alone do not define a good prosecutor. The responsibility is to follow the evidence, protect defendants’ rights, and pursue justice for victims and the community.”
How does your record of jury trials, courtroom appearances, and contested hearings compare with Marissa Roy’s? What specific experience should voters consider when evaluating the two candidates?
“I bring nearly 30 years of prosecutorial experience and more than 100 jury trials. Marissa Roy has never tried a case before a jury, and she has no management experience. I bring extensive firsthand experience examining witnesses, presenting evidence, and making consequential courtroom decisions. That’s a very big difference. Marissa is against enforcing 41.18, the safe schools and parks ordinance, and has supported a plan to not prosecute numerous misdemeanor crimes. Her policies mirror failed former District Attorney George Gascon, and we all witnessed how his policies negatively impacted Los Angeles County. Voters should consider both backgrounds, along with our leadership experience. This job requires someone who can evaluate lawyers’ work, recognize weaknesses in a case, and make sound decisions when public safety, individual rights, and taxpayer dollars are at stake.”
Voters hear a great deal about legal credentials during judicial and prosecutorial campaigns. Why should they look at actual courtroom performance rather than simply years of practice or professional titles?
“Credentials tell voters where someone has worked. Courtroom performance shows how that person handles responsibility under pressure. Have you evaluated evidence honestly? Examined witnesses effectively? Made difficult decisions when someone’s freedom or a victim’s chance at justice was at stake? Titles and years of practice matter, but they are not substitutes for demonstrated judgment. My courtroom experience has taught me to prepare thoroughly, recognize weaknesses, and take responsibility for results. Those are qualities I would bring to leading the City Attorney’s Office.”
What would you say to voters who believe that a candidate for City Attorney should have substantial firsthand experience examining witnesses, presenting evidence, and arguing cases before a jury?
“I agree that substantial jury trial experience is an important qualification, especially for someone leading an office that prosecutes crimes and defends the city in court. You understand litigation differently when you have personally questioned witnesses, introduced evidence, and asked jurors to trust your case. That experience helps you assess preparation, credibility, and risk. It is not the only qualification—the office also needs strong civil lawyers and effective management—but it gives a leader practical judgment that cannot be learned from a résumé alone.”
Your opponent has made opposition to the Trump administration a central part of her campaign and has sought to associate you with Trump-aligned Republicans. You are a lifetime registered Democrat. Why do you believe voters should judge you on your own record rather than political affiliations?
“Here’s my voting profile: I am a lifelong Democrat, and I oppose Donald Trump at every turn. I don’t know why Marissa Roy has decided to run her campaign in a way to deceive voters. I’m not a DSA member like she is. She is entitled to criticize my positions, but to lie about my political affiliation does a disservice to voters who deserve an honest discussion on the key issues impacting our city. Support from someone with different politics does not give that person control over my decisions. Judge me by the cases I have prosecuted, the people I have served, and the commitments I am making. I will defend Los Angeles against unlawful federal action while remaining focused on public safety, helping end homelessness, and protecting taxpayers.”
You have emphasized your Democratic identity in your campaign. Can you explain your political background and how your Democratic principles would shape your decisions as City Attorney?
“I grew up in Passaic, New Jersey and came to Los Angeles with two hundred and fifty dollars in my pocket. I have been a Democrat since the age of 19. I believe the government should protect people’s rights, expand opportunity, and ensure equal justice. My public-service career has centered on people harmed by violence, exploitation, and abuse. Those principles would guide me as City Attorney: protect civil rights, enforce the law fairly, hold powerful interests accountable, and make sure vulnerable residents are not overlooked. I do not believe compassion and accountability are competing values. People deserve both effective public protection and a justice system that treats everyone with dignity.”
If the Trump administration took an action that you believed unlawfully threatened Los Angeles residents, city funding, or local authority, what steps would you take?
“I would immediately assess the legal violation, the harm to Los Angeles, and the remedies available. If urgent action were necessary, I would seek emergency court relief. I would defend residents’ constitutional rights, lawful city authority, and funding the federal government has no legal basis to withhold. My responsibility would be to protect Los Angeles and our people—not generate headlines. When litigation is necessary, I would bring a well-supported case and pursue meaningful relief.”
Would you take legal action against a Democratic administration, a Republican administration, or a Democratic mayor if the evidence showed that the law had been violated? What safeguards would you put in place to ensure that political considerations never determine the office’s legal decisions?
“Yes. If the law and evidence warranted action within my authority, party affiliation would not determine my decision—whether the official involved was a Republican president, a Democratic president, or a Democratic mayor. I would require documented legal analysis, consistent standards for evaluating cases, and review by experienced career attorneys. Conflicts involving city officials would receive an independent ethics assessment and outside counsel when necessary. I would also explain significant decisions publicly whenever legal and confidentiality obligations permit. No donor, endorsement, or political relationship would substitute for the law.”
Your opponent has promised to make fighting the Trump administration a priority. What do you believe the City Attorney’s proper role should be in federal litigation, and how would you distinguish defending Los Angeles from pursuing a broader political agenda?
“The City Attorney should use federal litigation to protect Los Angeles when there is a concrete legal threat to residents, city operations, funding, or local authority. That can absolutely mean challenging the Trump administration. But the test should be whether we have a sound legal claim and a meaningful remedy—not whether a lawsuit advances a national political message. I would not neglect misdemeanor prosecution, civil enforcement, or the city’s legal liabilities to chase headlines. Defending Los Angeles and our people means carrying out the office’s entire mission.”
You have spent nearly three decades as a prosecutor. What specific management experience have you gained, and how has it prepared you to lead an office with multiple legal divisions and a large staff?
“As Director of Specialized Prosecutions, I oversee eight divisions and more than 300 attorneys and staff handling some of the county’s most sensitive and consequential cases. That work requires evaluating legal strategy, assessing risk, supporting managers, and making difficult decisions under pressure. I would not pretend that criminal prosecution and municipal civil practice are identical. My responsibility as City Attorney would be to recruit and empower excellent civil and criminal leaders, ask informed questions, establish clear expectations, and hold the entire organization accountable for its work.”
What is the largest team of attorneys and support staff you have supervised directly? What authority did you have over the hiring, performance evaluations, budgets, and strategic decisions?
“In my current position, I oversee more than 300 attorneys and staff across eight specialized divisions. That is organizational oversight through a management structure, not a claim that every employee reports directly to me. My responsibilities include reviewing consequential cases and helping guide prosecution strategy. I would distinguish that experience from whatever formal authority I have over hiring, evaluations, or budgets, rather than overstate my role. Leading the City Attorney’s Office would require clear delegation, strong division leadership, and accountability for both legal performance and public resources.”
The city has faced significant litigation costs and large legal payouts. How would you decide which lawsuits to defend vigorously, which to settle, and which cases might be prevented through better legal advice to city departments?
“I would evaluate cases early, based on the evidence, legal exposure, likely damages, and the cost of continued litigation. We should defend sound cases vigorously and resolve legitimate claims when settlement best protects the public. Neither reflexively fighting every lawsuit nor automatically settling is responsible. I would also examine patterns behind repeated claims and work with departments to correct the policies, training, or supervision causing them. The goal is not simply paying less after something goes wrong. It is preventing avoidable harm and liability in the first place.”
When should the City Attorney hire private law firms, and when should the work be handled by city attorneys? How would you evaluate whether outside counsel is delivering value to taxpayers?
“City attorneys should handle work they have the expertise and capacity to perform effectively. Outside counsel should fill a demonstrated need, such as a conflict, specialized expertise, or a workload that cannot responsibly be absorbed internally. I would require a defined scope, a justified budget, clear staffing expectations, and regular reporting. We would evaluate firms on the quality of their advice, results, efficiency, and compliance with agreed budgets—not political relationships or prestige. When outside work becomes recurring, we should examine whether building that expertise in-house would better serve taxpayers.”
What would you do to attract and retain experienced attorneys, ensure that specialized units have the resources they need, and hold managers accountable for results?
“Experienced attorneys stay where their expertise is respected, workloads are manageable, and leadership backs good work. I would meet with employees across divisions, identify staffing and training gaps, and give specialized units resources matched to their responsibilities. I have already criticized the dismantling of specialized prosecutorial units. Managers would be accountable for clear expectations, fair evaluations, professional development, and addressing problems promptly. Recruitment and retention also require honest discussions about compensation and advancement within the city’s financial constraints. Morale improves when people have the tools, support, and leadership to succeed.”
If elected, what would be your first three management priorities?
“I would reinstate the Neighborhood Prosecutors Program, that is a top priority for me.
I would review the office’s highest-risk litigation, major outside-counsel expenses, and recurring sources of liability so we can make informed decisions quickly. Then, assess staffing, workloads, morale, and specialized-unit needs with employees and division leaders, then establish clear management responsibilities, and set measurable priorities for prosecution.
View Original Publication: CityWatch LA