San Francisco Superior Court Judge Survey

We are writing collectively in response to your questionnaire. We appreciate your interest in the judicial system and the election process. Although judges are elected officials, we-unlike members of the executive and legislative branches- are constrained by the standards of judicial ethics and cannot discuss our personal opinions about issues which may come before us. We understand that the limits which prevent judges from speaking about issues such as crime and law enforcement may be challenging for voters. While the electorate can question candidates for the offices of mayor, board of supervisors, district attorney and public defender about their positions, including means to increase public safety, ethical canons limit judges. Restrictions on our ability to discuss issues about cases that may come before us reflect the central role of a fair and impartial judiciary in our democracy. By complying with them judges remain neutral, open-minded and independent, which contributes to public confidence in the courts.

To educate the public about the role of courts in addressing factors associated with involvement in the criminal justice system - e.g. mental illness, alcohol and drug addiction and homelessness - we and our colleagues have conducted town hall meetings and attended community events, including the San Francisco Superior Court booth at street fairs. We will continue to do so and are developing new programs to increase public awareness of our commitment to responding effectively to community concerns. We hope that these efforts will inform the members of STOP CRIME SF and its affiliated organizations about our judges’ role in creating a safe San Francisco for all.

Thank you for your contributions to our community.

Michael I. Begert
Teresa Caffese
Roger Chan
Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Samuel K. Feng
Christopher Hite
Curtis A.E. Karnow
Kathleen A. Kelly
Stephen Murphy
Patrick Thompson
Jeffrey S. Ross
Monica F. Wiley