Last April, during the AWP Conference in Denver, I had
the pleasure of having dinner with Michael Nava. As a native of San Francisco, I was especially interested to hear about his experience as a candidate for judge in San Francisco. I went away from that meeting with an eye towards eventually interviewing Nava for this blog.
For more information about his campaign and how you can
support his campaign, visit: http://navaforjudge.com/
FA: Francisco Aragón
MN: Michael Nava
FA:
Before I ask you to talk about your campaign, could you share with our readers how you came to the decision to want to run for election? Why do you want to be a judge? And can you comment on what you would bring to the bench, in addition to your experience in the legal profession?
MN:
I’ve been a lawyer for 28 years and in most of my jobs I’ve been the only Latino or the only gay person and certainly the only gay Latino. My personal experience is illustrative of a greater problem in the legal profession, the lack of diversity. In California, for example, 75% of the judges are white, 70% are male, and probably well over 90% are heterosexual. This, despite the fact that racial and ethnic minorities are over 50% of the state’s population — Latinos alone are 36% — slightly over 50% of the population is female and the LGBT community is certainly larger than the percentage of gay and lesbian judges. The court system is not a private system for dispute resolution — it is the third branch of government in a representative democracy. Judges have enormous authority over the lives of individuals and, as interpreters of the law, a great impact of public policy. Also, as every lawyer knows, judging is not the mechanical application of black letter law to particular circumstances. Judges exercise discretion in countless ways, from deciding whether a piece of evidence should be admitted to whether the Constitution protects the interests of a particular minority group. In my view, judges, then, should be drawn from the communities in which they exercise their authority. In California, however, the Governor has essentially unbridled power to pick judges and we have had a series of Republican Governors largely unresponsive to the state’s changing demographics. As a long-time advocate for a diverse judiciary, I tried to get appointed but, like so many other minority lawyers, my application got nowhere. So I decided to run, and to run against precisely the kind of judge — straight, white, male Republican from a big law firm — who is overrepresented in the California courts.
If elected, I will be the first openly gay judge of color. But diversity is not just a matter of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. While many of the current judges of the court are drawn from private practice and/or narrow specialties, I have demonstrated a commitment to public service that spans my entire-career. For example, I have been both a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney; both a trial lawyer and an appellate lawyer. As a judicial staff attorney at the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court, I have worked on legal issues of statewide significance in criminal, civil, juvenile and family law. Diversity is also a matter of personal background because the exercise of judicial discretion is informed as much by a judge’s values and life history as his or her legal training. I am the son of a teen-age mother, grandson of Mexican immigrants, raised in poverty, and the first in my family to be educated. My personal history is similar to that life experience of many people who get enmeshed in the law — generally poor people, people of color, without the ability to understand or navigate the legal system — and I would bring a particular sensitivity to these litigants that would ensure that everyone who appeared before me would be treated with respect and would be given the opportunity to be heard.
FA:
The sense I have gotten, from following your campaign, and speaking with you in Denver, is that the experience of running for judge has been quite an education. What are some of things you have learned about the judiciary and judiciary politics, in particular, during these last several months?
MN:
The most powerful lesson I have drawn from the race is the extent of the insularity and arrogance of the legal establishment. Lawyers seem to believe that the courts exist for their benefit and judges seem to think they are members of a private club, selected solely on the basis of their merits. But the courts are public institutions that exist for the benefit of the people and judges are public officials, accountable to the people. Moreover, the appointment system is as political and partisan as elections, but lacks the virtue of transparency. Many judges were not appointed for their merit, but because of their political connections or their ideology.
FA:
San Francisco, as we know, is, for the most part, a liberal progressive city.Your opponent has been on the bench, I believe, less than two years, which isn't a long time. What can you tell San Francisco voters about your opponent that you think they should take into consideration when casting their vote in November?
MN:
My opponent was actually appointed last June, so he’s been on the bench slightly more than a year. He exemplifies the kind of “establishment” choice — affluent, straight, white, male Republican, partner at a big law firm —that dominates California’s and San Francisco’s judiciary. There is, of course, a place for judges with this background but not to the exclusion of lawyers from diverse backgrounds. This is a message that resonates with the voters of San Francisco. Given the chance, they vote for diversity. For example, of the 9 gay or lesbian judges, six of them were elected rather than appointed. The last Latino judge was also elected. Indeed, I came in first in the June primary and would have won outright had there not been a third candidate.
FA:
The most recent phase of your campaign has been your managing to retain the endorsement of the San Francisco Democratic Central Committee. It is my understanding that those who were spearheading efforts to have this endorsement rescinded are liberal members of legal establishment, not only in San Francisco but in California.Why would Democrats want the DCC to withdraw their endorsement and leave the Republican endorsement intact?
MN:
The unsuccessful attempt to have the San Francisco Democratic party rescind its endorsement was led by two judges, one a Democrat and the other a Republican. What that demonstrates is that some judges have a completely unjustified sense of entitlement. These judges never argued — nor could they — that I was not qualified. Instead they argued that my opponent was qualified and, as such, there was no basis to challenge him. They dismissed the point about diversity by claiming that San Francisco’s court is diverse enough (70% white, over 50% male, two Latino/a judges out of 51.) To me, this was an example of a kind of paternalistic white liberalism that is all for the “downtrodden” as long the “liberals” get to decide the nature and timing of the assistance the “downtrodden” receive. To that I say, Basta! Our community doesn’t need the permission or approval of the white liberal establishment to assert its legitimate aspirations.
FA:
If you manage get be elected in November, could you share with our readers what kinds of things you would like to accomplish as a judge, if that's an appropriate question. What stamp would Michael Nava like to leave on the justice system in San Francisco and California?
MN:
Well, of course, my first responsibility will be to apply the law in an equal and impartial manner to everyone who comes before me. I think my background actually prepares me for that task in a better way than others who have not had the experience of being an outsider. To be impartial means to view the people who come before the court without the distortions of personal bias or stereotypes. Bias and stereotypes are the products of ignorance and ignorance is bred by insularity. From my perspective, someone like me, a queer Latino from a poor family who has also had to navigate the straight, white and affluent world both personally and professionally had a much wider knowledge of humanity than someone who, in essence, never had to leave home and see what the world is like for other people. It’s the difference between Sonia Sotomayor and John Roberts; she swims in a much wider sea of human experience than he does and I would trust her ability to be impartial before I would trust his.
FA:
Could you describe, as best you can, what life is like on the campaign trail? What is your day-to-day like. Walk us through a day in the life of your campaign.
MN:
Well, I’m basically an introverted intellectual, so campaigning has been a real stretch. Much of campaigning involves raising money, getting endorsements and meeting the voters. So, for example, this week I am having coffee with potential donors, I am being interviewed by three different local Democratic clubs for their endorsements, and I am going to three or four other events to network with voters. All this and, of course, a full-time job.
FA:
Readers of this blog are particularly interested in Latino letters. What particular message do you have, in particular, for them?
MN:
While my fiction was never ostensibly political I was always aware as a gay and Latino writer that merely the act of speaking truthfully about the reality of my existence was, in the broadest sense, a political act because, by implication, it rejected stereotypes and rebuked the mindless biases that justify the oppression of my communities. I see my campaign as being in the same spirit; telling the truth and letting people draw their own conclusions.
