Candidate Name: Alexandra Pray
Phone Number: 415-294-1396
Web site: alexandrapray.com
E-mail: alexandra.pray@gmail.com
Name of Campaign Manager: Joslin Kimani
Major Endorsements: SF Tenants Union, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, SF League of Pissed off Voters, Richmond District Democratic Club, Supervisor Jackie Fielder, Former Mayor Art Agnos, Former Board of Supervisors Presidents Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez, 6 SF Superior Court Judges
Please answer these questions to the extend that you are legally able
to; i.e., without indicating how your personal beliefs may influence
your professional behavior as a judge.
1) Have you volunteered any personal time or published anything
regarding the death penalty?
No
2) Have you volunteered any personal time or published anything
related to reproductive rights?
No
3) Have you volunteered any personal time around issues such as
corporate free speech, or corporate spending limits in elections?
No
4) Have you volunteered any personal time or published anything related to the decriminalization of psychedelic plants and fungi?
No
5) (if challenging/open seat) Please describe how you expect your
judicial style will be different from your predecessor in the seat
you are running for. Were there any specific decisions you
disagreed with? (if incumbent) Please explain why you retain
your position.
Early in my career, I did four misdemeanor trials in front of Judge Sandoval, my predecessor in the seat I am running for, but I don't think I have appeared in front of him in at least ten years. I am not comfortable commenting on how my style will be different, because I honestly cannot remember much about his particular style. However, if I am elected, I hope to cultivate a judicial style that is in keeping with my guiding values: empathy, integrity, and courage. I will endeavor to make sure that every litigant is confident that I understand and respect their position, even when - especially when - I rule against them. I will work to show the parties who appear before me that they can trust me to follow through on both my oath to the Constitution, and on any promise (or threat of sanctions) that I make in their proceedings, for good or for ill. And I will always follow and apply the law to the best of my understanding, even when I know my decision will be unpopular or come at some personal cost.
6) What Supreme Court Justices do you most often agree with and why?
I am afraid that commenting on the opinions of contemporary Supreme Court Justices could veer too closely to commenting on political issues, or on issues or controversies that could come before me as a judge, which is prohibited by the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Instead, I will refer to the Supreme Court Justice with whom I am most aligned historically, and that is Justice Robert Jackson, who served on the Court from 1941-1954. Justice Jackson was a stalwart protector of the freedoms and due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as well as an outspoken hater of conflicts of interest, and he is an inspiration to me as an aspiring jurist. Among his most notable works, he dissented from the majority's ratification of the internment of Japanese-Americans in Korematsu v. United States, and he was the author of perhaps my favorite United States Supreme Court opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which is a timeless and endlessly quotable ode to individual freedom and refutation of fascism.
7) What is your opinion of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding
abortion (Dobbs) and homelessness (Grants Pass)?
The Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibit me from commenting on political issues.
8) How can the legal community increase access to justice and solve
the current backlog in our local court system?
Unfortunately, I think the real key to increasing access to justice and solving the current backlog in our local court system lies not with the legal community, but with the Governor's Office and court administrators: we need all of our courtrooms to be fully staffed, all the time. There are constantly vacant seats on the court awaiting appointment; vacant seats should be filled without delay. It is routine for trials to be continued because "there are no courtrooms," when the reality is that there are *rooms*, but no judges or staff to make them operational. This should not be so. Furthermore, because the constitutional right to a speedy trial is guaranteed in criminal court but not civil court, criminal court rightly receives the priority in staffing and resources. But, because judicial assignments are constantly in flux to make sure the criminal courts are adequately staffed, it is difficult for judges to develop subject matter expertise in civil assignments, which also impact important areas of people's lives, such as their housing, families, and finances.
To the extent that the legal community can help solve the backlog, I do think more can be done to resolve cases well before trial. Ten years ago, prehearing settlement conferences were mandatory before every preliminary hearing, and they were usually meaningful and frequently fruitful. Somewhere along the way, the mandatory pre-preliminary hearing conferences were abandoned as a policy, and now almost every case goes to preliminary hearing and gets set for trial before resolution is even contemplated. I think the court could be doing more to facilitate early resolution, which would help bring down the backlog.
9) What kind of cases did you work on as an attorney?
Save for a brief stint training pollworkers in election law at the Department of Elections in my early days as an attorney, I have spent my entire career as a public defender. I spent ten years in the trial rotation, litigating virtually every type of criminal case, from trespass to murder. I have conducted over 50 jury trials, including three homicides (all resulting in acquittals) and many other serious felonies.
I also spent a year in collaborative courts, which are non-adversarial settings where I worked together with the prosecution, the court, and treatment teams to address the root causes that bring people into the criminal justice system, with the goal of reducing recidivism and advancing public safety. Although there were a few misdemeanor participants, most of our clients were facing some sort of felony charges, running the gamut from drug sales to burglary to assault with a deadly weapon.
Currently, I am assigned to the Research Unit, in which capacity I provide advice to my colleagues on complicated legal issues, and provide support by writing complex motions and pretrial writs. I also present at trainings on a regular basis.
10) What are the biggest challenges currently within the legal system?
As discussed in Question #8, some of the biggest challenges currently within the legal system have to do with inadequate staffing, delays, and cases taking too long to resolve, for no good reason. This undermines public confidence in the courts to actually deliver justice in a meaningful way.
Another, somewhat related challenge is the lack of funding for social support programs. Empirical evidence shows that recidivism in lower-level, "quality of life" crimes would be drastically reduced if offenders could be placed in affordable housing and have access to support services, but in San Francisco, those resources are almost completely absent. While there are treatment programs for people with substance use disorders, those programs have limited beds and long wait lists; even when a defendant is granted diversion or otherwise has a chance at a treatment-based resolution, frequently they must wait in custody for months for a bed to open up, ultimately losing motivation to engage with treatment. The programs and beds for people with non-substance use-related mental health disorders, or with dual diagnoses, are even more scarce, and also involve long waits while people sit in jail because they don't have anywhere else to go. And for people who are just unhoused but not suffering from any diagnosable disorder, there is nothing. The result is a "revolving door" system of justice that does not sustainably improve conditions on the street, or enhance public safety. There would be incalculable benefit to the legal system and the community as a whole if state and local government would make large-scale, long-term commitments to social support services.