Alexandra Pray

• Office: Superior Court Judge
• Election Date: June 2, 2026
• Candidate: Alexandra Pray
• Due Date: March 31, 2026
• Printable Version

Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the June 2, 2026 election! GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city delivered via common sense solutions and effective government. Our work includes running public opinion polls to understand what voters want, advocating for those changes, and ensuring that the SF government represents the people.

The GrowSF endorsement committee will review all completed questionnaires and seek consensus on which candidates best align with our vision for San Francisco.

This questionnaire will be published on growsf.org, and so we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.

We ask that you please complete this questionnaire by March 31, 2026 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.

• Your Leadership
• Your Experience
• Personal
• Thank you

Your Leadership

We'd like to learn more about your leadership style and plan to execute effectively once you assume office.

Why are you running for Superior Court Judge?

I am running for judge because I am devoted to public service, I have a deep respect for the integrity of the judicial system, and I have the right combination of knowledge, experience, and temperament to do the job well. I have been a constant presence in San Francisco Superior Court for over a decade, and I have developed a reputation not only for being a smart, effective advocate, but also for treating everyone I contact with respect and courtesy. I am not known for being any sort of extremist or zealot; although my work is necessarily adversarial, my instinct is for diplomacy. I always try to understand where my opponent is coming from, looking for common ground as a starting point. My conciliatory nature has been a great asset in terms of building strong working relationships with prosecutors and judges, which in turn has helped me to reach fair, just resolutions in the vast majority of my cases. I think that, as a judge, my ability to foster harmony and build off of points of agreement would serve me even better than they do as an advocate.

I understand that the job of a judge is different that the job of an advocate, and, because I am so passionate about the integrity of the judicial system, that last thing I would want is for anyone to perceive me as an advocate in a robe. I think I have the right personality to shed my public defender persona, and embrace a new image as a neutral arbiter.

In your own words, what are the core statutory responsibilities of Superior Court Judge?

Although every judicial assignment has different functions, the general core responsibilities of a Superior Court Judge are:

• knowing the law as it relates to the judge's particular assignment, especially as it relates to the standards that the judge must be using in evaluating the evidence;
• conscientiously maintaining a judicial demeanor: the judge needs to be aware of their body language and tone of voice at all times, in order to ensure that everyone feels safe and respected in the courtroom, and no one feels like they are being treated differently than anyone else;
• courtroom management, including ensuring that the calendar is running efficiently, such that every case has a full opportunity to be heard and considered without taking up an undue amount of time, as well as ensuring that everyone is being treated with courtesy and respect, and that no one is causing distractions or otherwise compromising the integrity of the proceedings;
• active listening: making sure that the judge truly understands the point that each litigant is trying to make, in order to fully comprehend both sides of an argument so that the judge can make a fair ruling;
• being decisive: judges cannot let arguments go back and forth all day, and they cannot go back to chambers and do independent research on every issue and controversy. Judges have to be confident when they have heard sufficient evidence and argument, and apply the law to the facts to make what they believe is the fair and just ruling.

What makes you uniquely qualified for this position?

While I have spent my career on the defense side, my dad is a retired New York State Police sergeant, so I grew up thinking about criminal justice from the law enforcement perspective. I think the very fact that I became a defense lawyer – not as an act of rebellion, but because I know that our system needs good lawyers on both sides – speaks to my ability to keep an open mind and challenge my own assumptions, which are both important qualities for a judge. My lived experience combined with my work has given me a unique perspective in terms of being able to really take in and appreciate all sides of justice issues, and San Francisco would be well-served to have that perspective represented on the bench.

What three measurable outcomes should San Franciscans use to evaluate your success after your first term in office?

The Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibit me from indicating that voters can expect any particular outcomes from me; I cannot commit to any particular outcomes. However, I will view my first term as a success as long as the vast majority of litigants who appeared before me (because I know you can't please everyone) feel as though I truly listened to, engaged with, and understood their position and treated them with courtesy and respect, even if (especially if) I ruled against them – and in those cases where I ruled against them, I would further want the litigants to feel assured that I did so because that was what I believed the law demanded, not because of any sort of personal animosity or because I didn't understand them.

Your Experience

Since the State Bar prohibits judges from discussing how they may or may not rule, we would like to focus on your career experience. Voters want to know what judges have done in their careers before becoming a judge. In this section we hope to give candidates a chance to explain to voters what makes them qualified for this job.

Please provide an overview of your career. Please include, if applicable, experience representing the elderly, the disabled, and members of marginalized groups. Be as brief or as verbose as you'd like. (Note that follow up questions will focus on particular verticals.)

When I first moved to the Bay Area after law school, and I was waiting to be admitted to the Bar, I volunteered at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, assisting attorneys representing clients in unlawful detainer actions. My first job after becoming a licensed attorney was with the San Francisco Department of Elections – I served as a pollworker trainer during the June, 2010 election cycle. My job was to help devise and implement a curriculum to teach all City pollworkers about applicable election laws and regulations, to ensure that the election was free, fair, and accessible for all.

Later in 2010, I was hired at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. I have represented many members of marginalized communities – all of my clients have been low-income, and several have been elderly, people of color, LGBTQ, or disabled. I was in the trial rotation for 10 years, and I have tried 53 cases to verdict – 27 misdemeanors, and 26 felonies. I have also helped hundreds and hundreds of clients reach fair resolutions through negotiated dispositions, avoiding the need for trial.

After 10 years in the trial rotation, I asked to be assigned to collaborative courts, and I staffed Drug Court and Community Justice Court. Those courts are non-adversarial settings where the defense, prosecution, court, and treatment teams all work together to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety, by helping clients address the underlying issues that brought them into the criminal legal system.

Since returning from maternity leave in late 2024, I have worked in the Research Unit, Where I spend most of my time reading case law, writing motions, and providing advice to colleagues.

What is your experience in criminal trial law? How many cases have you tried, are there any you're particularly proud of?

I have over 15 years of experience in criminal litigation, and I have tried 53 cases to verdict – 27 misdemeanors, and 26 felonies.

One outcome I am particularly proud of was in the first homicide case that was ever assigned to me. My client was a young man with a negligible criminal record, who randomly attacked a stranger with a kitchen knife on the street. It became clear to me early on that he suffered from an undiagnosed mental health disorder, and I had a psychiatrist evaluate him. The psychiatrist diagnosed the client with schizophrenia, and wrote a report supporting a not guilty by reason of insanity ("NGI") defense. I then retained one of the DA Office's preferred psychiatrist, because I believed that the jury would find it very compelling if I could present a finding in my client's favor from an expert who usually testified for the prosecution. That psychiatrist also found that my client was NGI. However, a psychiatrist later appointed by the court disagreed with the NGI finding, so the issue remained contested.

We eventually went to trial, and my client was found guilty during the "guilt" phase; however, before we started evidence for the "sanity" phase, the prosecuting attorney agreed to stipulate that my client was NGI. As a result, my client was sentenced to an indefinite commitment in the state hospital instead of prison, which is a result that I believe all parties found to be a fair and just outcome.

Similarly, what is your experience in civil trial law?

I have not tried any cases in civil court.

Superior Court judges regularly preside over serious criminal matters, including allegations of organized criminal activity. Without speaking to any specific case or how you might rule, please explain the court's role in ensuring cases alleging organized criminal activity are handled fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law?

In order to preserve integrity and maintain the orderly administration of justice, I think the court must have the same approach in ensuring all cases are handled fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law – I don't think the court can single out a particular class of cases, and adopt a particular attitude or approach toward those cases. In all cases, the court should carefully analyze the facts, apply the relevant law, and make a ruling on the contested issue in a timely fashion, without bias or favor toward any party or position.

SF courts face challenges involving defendants with severe mental illness, conservatorship questions, and competency evaluations. What experience do you have in your career in representing clients with these issues?

I have represented countless clients suffering from severe mental illness, and I have extensive experience dealing with the competency evaluation process at all stages. In my current role in my office's Research Unit, I have become the unit's informal mental health specialist – I have taken a great interest in the law surrounding competency and the interplay between conservatorship and the criminal system, and I take on most of the assignments involving these issues.

San Francisco courts face significant backlog challenges in both civil and criminal divisions. What case-management practices do you believe help courts manage caseloads efficiently, reduce unnecessary delay, and ensure timely resolution for litigants?

I think more can be done to resolve cases early on, well before they are set for trial. Ten years ago, in criminal court, prehearing settlement conferences were mandatory before every preliminary hearing, and they were usually meaningful and frequently fruitful. The lawyers had to give a full overview of the allegations and possible defenses or mitigation, and each side had to explain what resolution they were seeking, and why. The judge would weigh in with what they thought a fair resolution would be, and would try to get the parties to find a compromise if they weren't too far apart. Through this process, many cases resolved without even going to preliminary hearing.

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, often taking months or even years to settle. I think the court could help bring down the backlog by once again requiring the parties to earnestly engage in a meaningful settlement conference in the early stages of a case.

How will you ensure impartiality, avoid implicit bias, and maintain fairness in your courtroom? Please describe practices you use or would use to ensure equal treatment of all litigants.

As I mentioned in my response to a previous question, I believe that a core function of being a judge is being conscientious about maintaining a judicial demeanor at all times. Judges must be conscious and mindful of how they are treating people – including their tone of voice, body language, and giving everyone an equal opportunity to be heard without interruption - or else there is too much risk of implicit bias or partiality creeping in. And, if a litigant accused me of exhibiting bias or partiality, I would take a step back to earnestly examine my conduct, and, if appropriate, apologize and internalize the lesson to do better. (And, if I disagreed with their characterization, I would patiently and respectfully explain why I was not being biased or partial just because I did something they didn't like.)

Additionally, I would not be shy about enforcing the code of courtesy and respect in my courtroom if anyone were treating someone else in an unprofessional or disrespectful way.

SF courtrooms handle emotionally charged cases, vulnerable victims, and often volatile situations. How would you maintain decorum, safety, and professionalism in your courtroom while ensuring that all participants — including victims, defendants, jurors, and attorneys — feel respected and heard? Please include relevant experience in your own trial history, if any.

I have handled many emotionally charged cases, including many with vulnerable victims and volatile situations. As a result, I have had a lot of practice in maintaining decorum and professionalism while also upholding my duty to zealously represent my client. I have tried many domestic violence cases involving volatile relationships where the emotions were still raw when the case got to trial, and I have had my share of alleged victims transfer their feelings about my client on to me, becoming increasingly agitated and openly hostile during cross-examination. In those instances, I have learned to maintain my composure and remind myself that it isn't about me at all, and I usually just turn to the judge, who will generally admonish the victim that I am not attacking them and that I am just doing my job. That being said, I have seen a wide variance in the sensitivity with which the judges make this kind of admonition, and I would try to strike a balance between not making the victim feel like I, as the judge, was further piling on and attacking them, while at the same time, not being so effusively sensitive that I give the jury the impression that I am coddling or otherwise signaling bias toward the victim. In instances of high volatility, I find that it is usually helpful for the judge to take it upon his or herself to send the jury in the hallway so the parties can have a moment to reset and let the temperature come down.

Judges exercise discretion in sentencing and other decisions within statutory frameworks. What principles and/or experiences would guide you in your decision making process?

Every exercise of discretion is very fact-specific, and specific to the particular statutory framework being applied, so it is very hard to apply principles or experiences as a generalization. However, in most instances, among other factors, I would consider the legislative intent underlying the statutory framework, and I would weigh how each possible outcome might either further or undermine that legislative intent.

Public trust in the courts depends on consistent, clear, and fair application of the law. How will you promote transparency and public confidence in your courtroom? Are there practices you would implement — such as clear explanation of rulings, data sharing, or procedural improvements — to strengthen trust?

Providing a clear explanation of my rulings is one of my top commitments if I am elected. I think it is very important for both the parties and the public to understand judges' thought processes and how the application of the law to the facts led them to reach any given ruling. Obviously, the judge can only rule in favor of one party or the other in almost any given case, and the party who the judge rules against naturally believes that they were in the right – I believe that the judge owes it to that party to explain how the law required the judge to rule against them, in order to combat any impression that the judge just didn't understand their position, or that the ruling was based on personal animosity toward the party, or the judge's own values or priorities. Furthermore, if members of the public are taking the time to observe court proceedings – whether as a supporter of a party, or simply out of an interest in civic engagement – I believe the judge owes it to them, too, to take the time to explain the ruling, in order to promote public confidence that the courts have integrity and can be trusted to fairly apply the law.

Personal

Tell us a bit about yourself!

How long have you lived in San Francisco? What brought you here and what keeps you here?

This month I celebrated 16 years as a San Franciscan. Growing up in a climate where it is not unheard of for the snowy season to extend from October into April, I had always dreamed of living in California, and I was particularly drawn to San Francisco because of the culture and the incredible natural beauty (and because my grampy lived down the peninsula, so I wouldn't feel completely removed from my family.) I had been too afraid to be so far from my parents to apply for college or law school out here, but once it came time for me to decide where to take the bar, I decided to pursue my dream.

What keeps me here is the wonderful life I have built here – my friends are here, I met my husband here, and I cannot imagine not having access to the incredible arts and culture we have here, such as the Symphony, the libraries, and the museums. (And, of course, my rent-controlled apartment really keeps me here!) I love to travel, but it is never a letdown to come home to San Francisco.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

I love how every neighborhood feels like its own distinct village, with its own culture, and its own hidden charms. I've lived in the Western Addition, the Tenderloin, Ingleside, and now Laurel Village, and no matter where I live, I think, "This is the best. Everyone should want to live here!" I love that everywhere I have ever lived in the city (and where I work), I have been able to walk to the grocery store.

I love getting to know new parts of the city, and I love that I know there is still so much in the city that I have yet to discover.

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

I hate how frequently restaurants that I love close out of nowhere. (RIP Padrecito.)

Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)

I have served on the Executive Board of the Municipal Attorney's Association since early 2020. I also currently serve on the Training Committee for the California Public Defender's Association.

Thank you

Thank you for giving us your time and answering our questionnaire. We look forward to reading your answers and considering your candidacy!