We recommend voting for Phoebe Maffei for Superior Court Judge.

Phoebe Maffei has the experience, judgment, and temperament San Francisco has been asking for on the bench. In her 15 years in the District Attorney’s Office she amassed broad courtroom experience, handling cases ranging from misdemeanors to homicide (including some very high profile cases), worked across specialty assignments including domestic violence, elder abuse, financial crimes, appeals, and mental health matters. She understands that a judge is not a pundit, activist, or political brand, and that her job will be to run an orderly courtroom, apply the law fairly, and make measured decisions that affect victims, defendants, families, and the public.

We believe Phoebe has both the mindset and track record to help restore public confidence in a court system that works best when it is fair, competent, and disciplined. This is the only judicial race on the ballot, and it’s worth paying attention to.

I simply want to follow the law, uphold the Constitution, and offer people an opportunity to be heard. Just law, no politics.

Phoebe MaffeiCandidate for Superior Court Judge

Why vote for Phoebe Maffei?

Phoebe Maffei’s top strengths are:

1. Broad courtroom experience

Superior Court judges don’t get to pick their assignments. They rotate through criminal, civil, family, and probate courts—and need to be competent on day one in each. Phoebe has worked in more areas of the law than many first-time judicial candidates: misdemeanor and felony trials, domestic violence, elder abuse, financial crimes, public corruption, homicide, appellate work, and civil enforcement actions against major companies. She’s tried 34 jury cases to verdict and handled hundreds of cases that were resolved before trial. While her opponent has tried more cases (53), she’s been exclusively on the defense side, with no civil experience. For a generalist court, Phoebe’s range is a meaningful advantage.

2. A holistic understanding of justice

A good Superior Court judge must protect the rights of defendants, treat every person with dignity, and take public safety seriously. Phoebe led the prosecution of David DePape, the man who brutally attacked Paul Pelosi, to a conviction and life sentence. Phoebe has worked with victims of domestic violence, elder abuse, fraud, and violent crime. But her questionnaire answers aren’t one-note: she emphasizes that “one of the best ways a judge can work to improve safety in our communities is by working to address root causes of criminality in sentencing.” She has worked with defense attorneys, mental health professionals, and social workers to craft treatment plans for people in Mental Health Diversion and Behavioral Health Court. Voters can expect a judge who takes public safety seriously.

3. The right view of the judge’s role

Both Phoebe and her opponent emphasize a judge’s need to be impartial, but they differ in the details of what this means. Alexandra frames the role through temperament and process: demeanor, active listening, treating every case identically. She declines to offer measurable outcomes, citing judicial ethics canons, and when asked about organized crime cases, says the court “cannot single out a particular class of cases and adopt a particular attitude or approach.” The result is a vision of impartiality defined largely by what a judge shouldn’t do. And the question is: if she’s willing to commit to transparent rulings, why can’t she identify measurable indicators of success? The Canons argument feels selectively applied.

Phoebe defines it by what a judge should do. She names the statutory goals of sentencing — punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation — and says judges should address root causes of criminal behavior while acknowledging that some defendants need to be removed from the community. She commits to concrete metrics: juror and attorney surveys, case-efficiency data, and appellate affirmance rates. Where Alexandra treats impartiality as an end in itself, Phoebe treats it as a discipline in service of making hard calls, explaining them clearly, and being accountable for results.

On other issues

• Court efficiency: Phoebe points to practical improvements like better scheduling, stronger courthouse technology, and more early-resolution options to reduce backlog and unnecessary continuances. That is the right instinct. Courts should move cases promptly and predictably.
• Public confidence: Phoebe says judges should use plain language when possible and keep proceedings understandable and open within the limits of the law. San Francisco’s courts need more of that.
• Impartiality and accessibility: She emphasizes interpreter access, disability accommodations, ongoing bias training, and treating every litigant with dignity. Those are core parts of running a courtroom that people can trust.