The Bar Association of San Francisco Releases Evaluations for Election Candidates for San Francisco Superior Court Judge

May 7, 2026

San Francisco, CA—The Judiciary Committee of the Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) today released its evaluation findings for two judicial candidates seeking election to the San Francisco Superior Court in the upcoming June 2, 2026, Primary Election.

Following its investigation, candidate interviews, and deliberations, the Judiciary Committee finds the candidates as follows:

Phoebe Maffei – Seat 16: Well-Qualified
Alexandra Pray – Seat 16: Well-Qualified

The Judiciary Committee is charged with evaluating candidates seeking appointment or election to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco. The Committee is composed of a diverse cross-section of the San Francisco legal community. Its members represent large, medium and small law firms; government legal offices; and corporate legal departments.

Each candidate was asked to complete and submit the same questionnaire used by the Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) Commission, in addition to appearing for a personal interview with the Committee. The Committee also conducted its own investigation by interviewing judges, lawyers and others with knowledge of the candidates’ qualifications. All aspects of the Committee’s investigation and deliberations remain strictly confidential.

The Committee inquired into, among other matters, the following attributes: (i) integrity and character; (ii) judgment and intellectual capacity; (iii) professional experience; (iv) industry and diligence; (v) judicial temperament, including whether the candidate would be courteous and considerate of counsel, parties, witnesses, and jurors, and whether the candidate is even-tempered; (vi) decisiveness; (vii) ability to transcend personal biases; (viii) professional ability and legal knowledge; (ix) health; (x) reputation in the community; and (xi) civic and community activities.

In assessing the qualifications of a candidate, Committee members assign one of following categories defined in the bylaws:

(i) “Qualified” — The candidate possesses the attributes listed above so as to indicate the ability to satisfactorily perform the judicial function for which she or he is being considered.

(ii) “Well-Qualified” — The candidate possesses all the attributes required for a rating of “Qualified” and possesses one or more of those positive attributes to such a high degree as to be indicative of superior fitness to perform the judicial function for which she or he is being considered.

(iii) “Exceptionally Well-Qualified” — The candidate possesses the attributes of integrity and character, judgment and intellectual capacity, professional experience, industry and diligence, judicial temperament, decisiveness, ability to transcend personal biases, professional ability and knowledge of the law, health, general reputation in the community, and civic and community activities to such an extremely high degree to be indicative of exceptional fitness to perform the judicial function for which she or he is being considered.

(iv) “Not Recommended for Appointment/Election at this Time” — The candidate lacks one or more of the attributes required for a rating of “Qualified” at the time of the evaluation, but the committee members consider the deficiency one which is capable of correction in the future based upon additional experience.

(v) “Not Qualified” — The candidate lacks one or more of the attributes required for a rating of “Qualified” to such an extent that the Committee doubts the candidate’s fitness to perform satisfactorily the judicial function for which he or she is being considered.

(vi) “No Action” — A majority of the Committee consisting of at least eight members has been unable to assign one of the other categories to the candidate.