CHRONICLE RECOMMENDS
San Francisco Superior Court Races in the March 3 Primary Election
Seat 1
Pang Ly has an inspiring life story, having come to the United States as a Vietnam War refugee in 1979. She and her six siblings lived in poverty with their parents in a 2bedroom, 1bath house in the Midwest. She became the first in her family to graduate from college and earned a law degree from the University of Missouri.
Maria Evangelista, Ly’s opponent for this open seat, has a compelling story of her own. Her parents came from Jalisco, Mexico, as migrant farmworkers without formal educations.
However, Evangelista learned her work ethic from them and became highschool class valedictorian and student body president, graduated from San Francisco State and ultimately earning her law degree from Vanderbilt
University.
Ly has worked in the San Francisco Superior Court for the past decade, most recently as a commissioner on an array of matters; Evangelista has worked in the public defender’s office for 16 years, representing “thousands of people” and appearing in more than 51 jury trials. Each has received a “qualified rating” from the Bar Association of San Francisco — and there is no doubt that each has the intellect and temperament for the job.
The edge goes to Ly for the diversity and quality of her experience in the courts. She has been endorsed by 32 judges and gets our recommendation in the March 3 election.
Seat 18
Dorothy Chou Proudfoot knows her way around a courtroom. In fact, she has helped train female lawyers for trial work in a program of the Bar Association of San Francisco.
Proudfoot would bring formidable experience to the Superior Court bench. She has presided over more than 200 rentcontrol cases as an administrative law judge. She spent 16 years as a deputy district attorney, specializing in gang violence and sexual assault. She has worked with the Asian American Bar Association to increase diversity in the legal profession.
She knew exactly what to answer when San Francisco’s Democratic County Central Committee asked her in a questionnaire whether she would fight for the party platform’s “implementation in policies”: no, emphatically. She rightly cited Canon 5 of the state’s code of judicial ethics that neither judges nor candidates for the bench should “engage in political activity that may create the appearance of political bias or impropriety.”
Her opponent, public defender Michelle Tong, circled “yes” on that question. Tong has handled more than 50 cases at trial and cites her commitment to the community and her lifelong dedication “to demystifying” fears of the law as among her motivations to seek the judiciary.
However, Proudfoot has the superior qualifications and gets our endorsement.
Seat 21
Kulvindar “Rani” Singh was the most impressive of the six San Francisco judicial candidates interviewed by our editorial board for this election. She has appeared in more than 100 trials in her two decades in the district attorney’s office.
The depth and breadth of Singh’s experience was reflected in her thoughtful assessment of the role of a judge in everything from the treatment of other participants in court to her commitment to adherence to the rule of law. In a discussion of one hypothetical example, she explained that she would reach out to the state attorney general or even the Supreme Court for guidance.
“Judges shouldn’t be afraid to ask for help,” she said.
It’s no surprise that she received the highest possible rating — “exceptionally well qualified” — from the Bar Association of San Francisco.
Her opponent, tenant attorney Carolyn Gold, was rated “qualified,” two notches down on the scale. In a questionnaire from the Democratic County Central Committee, Gold answered an unqualified “yes” to whether she would fight for the party platform’s implementation in policies. That in itself should be a nonstarter for a judge, whose fidelity should be to the law as written, as spelled out in Canon 5 of the state’s code of judicial ethics.
Singh is the clear choice in this race.