Over 50 San Franciscans came to Golden Gate Park’s Hall of Flowers last week to see a debate between the two candidates for the open judicial seat on the June 2 ballot. Most of them, other than strict grammarians, likely left with the same question they walked in with, “Who shall I vote for?”
The two candidates — Assistant District Attorney Phoebe Maffei and Deputy Public Defender Alexandra Pray — engaged in an exceedingly polite discussion about criminal justice and procedure but failed to draw sharp distinctions between their approaches to the law or what San Franciscans might expect from their potential judicial service.
The similarities in their answers were matched by their overall campaigns. Candidate Pray has reported spending $26,431, while Candidate Maffei has spent $26,389. However, San Francisco voters should expect to see much more of Maffei than Pray over the next 30 days between now and the election — the Maffei campaign has $101,000 cash on hand while Pray’s has only $17,000.
Both candidates have extensive courtroom experience and are well regarded throughout the Hall of Justice. Candidate Maffei has over 15 years of prosecution experience, largely fighting white collar crime, including public corruption; elder, consumer, and financial abuse; and significant domestic violence cases. The prosecution case she described as her scariest was convicting Paul Pelosi’s assailant, who had also targeted Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi for violence. Another significant matter was prosecuting a ring of scammers who used superstition fears against elderly Chinese women and gaining a return of money and jewelry to the victims.
Candidate Pray told the audience that her most significant case was on behalf of a 23-year-old defendant who stabbed a stranger on Market Street and left a knife in the victim’s head. Her client had an undiagnosed mental disorder but no prior criminal record. As a result of Pray’s investigation and court advocacy, a district attorney stipulated to the defendant’s mental disorder, which cleared the way for an insanity plea deal for a life sentence, and treatment, in a mental health hospital instead of prison.
Throughout the evening, both candidates prefaced their answers with phrases such as, “I agree with everything she [my opponent] just said. … “I would say about the same [as the other candidate]. …” and “As [my opponent] has said. …” They agreed that courts must do a better job of explaining rulings in plain language so that litigants and the public understand what is happening in the courtroom and why the judge rules as she does. They both cited examples of the limits on judicial discretion imposed by the state legislature.
The candidate who does not win could still be in line for an appointment to the bench before Governor Newsom ends his term.
Frank Noto, president of Stop Crime SF, the primary debate sponsor, was pleased with the evening. He stated, “The forum was very educational. Both candidates might make good judges. It’s impressive that both are committed to reducing pre-trial delays, which retraumatize victims and their families.”
A clear distinction between the two candidates is that Pray has spent her career as a public defender while Maffei began in the district attorney’s office even before she completed law school. In the public defender’s office, Pray worked for a year in Collaborative Courts, mainly for felony defendants, attempting to find the “root causes” of crime, advance public safety and reduce recidivism. Noto worried that “she made no distinction between drug dealers with repeat offenses and lesser criminals.”
Over the past 10 years, political debates — at all levels of campaigns and both partisan and nonpartisan — have highlighted sound bites and attacks. These two candidates did not come close to such tactics. But they left voters with little information to differentiate them beyond the choices they made in 2010 at the start of their law careers to use their skills and talents for criminal prosecution (Maffei) or criminal defense (Pray).
With just two candidates, the election will be decided in June without the need for a November runoff. Ironically, the candidate who does not win could still be in line for an appointment to the bench before Governor Newsom ends his term and, if appointed, could begin her judicial career before the June election winner.
In slightly over six years, San Francisco has experienced a resignation, a recall and a defeat of the district attorney, numerous election challenges to sitting Superior Court judges, and a wide-ranging civic debate over judicial decisions and public safety. The contest between Maffei and Pray does not match the decibel volume of this recent history. There remains a significant need for the court system itself to educate the public, as these candidates have done, about the powers of and limits on judges to protect the rights of defendants, victims, and the general public. Candidates Maffei and Pray helped the debate viewers on these systemic questions but must still convince the voters which one should get their votes.
