Two vying for circuit court judge position cite life experiences along with legal backgrounds

To see how candidates answered identical questions from Lookout, click here.

Neither Amit Kapoor nor Katina Saint Marie claim to have followed a straightforward path to their careers in law.

Each has an advanced degree in a subject other than law. They also both cite experiences far from the courtroom as helpful in ensuring fairness and empathy for people appearing in Lane County Circuit Court.

“I think a lot of people think that judges are these sort of aloof, powerful people,” Kapoor said.

Not so, Kapoor said.

“We care. We’re listening,” he said.

In the May 19 election, voters will choose between Kapoor, a judge since a 2020 governor’s appointment who previously worked as a public defender, and Saint Marie, a family law practitioner in Eugene and a pro-tem circuit court judge.

Voters elect circuit court judges to six-year terms in nonpartisan races. Circuit court judges preside over civil and criminal cases and often have assignments to other specialty courts, such as drug court. They are paid $204,060 a year. 

Kapoor and Saint Marie are vying for Position 6 in Oregon’s 2nd Judicial District. Six other Lane County Circuit Court judges — Bradley A. Cascagnette, Charles M. Zennaché, Kamala H. Shugar, Clara L. Rigmaiden, Jessica E. May and Allison Knight — are running unopposed.

Katina Saint Marie 

While working as a secretary at a law office, Saint Marie, 53, told her boss she would one day be a lawyer.

“He kind of laughed about that,” Saint Marie said.

Now, with almost 20 years of experience as a practicing attorney, Saint Marie said she’s mindful about the importance of people being able to seek out their own opportunities.

“No matter what, I never want to be one of those people that doesn’t want someone else to get where I maybe am at,” Saint Marie said.

She said she wants to hear from people appearing in court to better understand their experiences. The court system should “meet people where they are at,” Saint Marie said.

“I get reminders on my phone about every single other appointment that I have, but I don’t think people are getting phone reminders about their court dates,” Saint Marie said. For the courts, she said it’s important to ask, “How can we improve our systems to make it more user-friendly?” 

She said she’s passionate about access to justice. Her family law clients “want a better life for themselves, a better life for their kids,” she said. 

“I just relate to my clients, because it’s hard to make your way through the world. And I know that,” Saint Marie said.

Born in Denver, Saint Marie also lived in Kansas before coming to Oregon from Las Vegas at 17 with her partner, whom she later married and had two children with.

The colleges they applied to guided their choice of where to live, she said.

“And I picked here, because I wanted to be in a rainy place,” Saint Marie said.

But she said she couldn’t afford to attend the University of Oregon, where her partner attended law school. The couple’s two children are now grown, and the marriage ended in divorce in 2000, she said. She is currently married.

“I started at LCC in winter of 1991, and it took me 13 years to get my associate transfer degree because I was working and supporting my kids,” Saint Marie said, adding that she worked multiple job at times. There were “lots of times that my former husband didn’t earn any money as a lawyer,” she said.

Saint Marie said there “was violence in my home,” describing her decision to leave the marriage.

In 2001, she began applying for jobs at UO to get discounted tuition, landing a university job in 2002.

“My employment and schooling were always really linked for me,” Saint Marie said, describing working more than a half-time position but not quite full-time while a student.

She was a single parent during her undergraduate years. 

“Nobody in my family went to college. Nobody understood this world. There was nobody walking that path in front of me that I could rely on,” Saint Marie said.

‘People are in this journey together’

Law school was always her goal, but in addition to a law degree awarded in 2007, she pursued a doctorate in English literature “because I loved it,” completing her doctorate in 2015.

“I was focused on 16th century English literature, which very much has the world view that I appreciate, of, people are in this journey together, and we’re here to support each other,” Saint Marie said.

She practiced law while completing the requirements of her doctoral degree, and said her background helps her connect with her family law clients.

“Because those experiences are just so with me still, I meet clients who are extremely vulnerable in society who have a lot of strikes against them, big uphill battles,” Saint Marie said. “And when they become vulnerable enough to tell me about their goals and aspirations, I just say, ‘Go for it.’”

She said she applied in 2020 and 2022 to be appointed as a judge, making it to the finalist stage in 2022. She applied again last fall, and wasn’t granted an interview.

“It started really seeming like if you don’t have connections in the governor’s office, you’re not going to get it,” Saint Marie said.

After getting some encouragement to run for the position, Saint Marie said, “I just thought, If I don’t go for this, I’m going to regret it.”

In addition to her family law experience, she’s served as a pro-tem judge, meaning she’s been called on to fill in during certain proceedings in Lane County Circuit Court.

Her campaign counts among endorsements Marty Wilde, a former Oregon state representative, and Doug Mitchell, a retired Lane County Circuit Court judge.

“I’m not here to critique my opponent, and so I’m not going to comment on his judging,” Saint Marie said.

But when asked about Kapoor’s lengthier list of endorsers, which include Eugene’s mayor and several current or former elected officials, Saint Marie didn’t hesitate to paint herself as someone outside of politics.

“I don’t have political connections. I don’t know people in power, and this is a nonpartisan race. When I look at the endorsers [for Kapoor], I wonder about that,” Saint Marie said.

“I think voters should look at our record. They should look at who I am, they should look at who my opponent is, and they should make a decision based on who is best-suited to serve the people in this community. What have we done? What are we doing? What do we bring to the table?” Saint Marie said. “Not, who do we know?”

Amit Kapoor 

Kapoor, 49, came to the United States as an eighth-grader after living his early childhood life in India. His childhood was spent in North India, outside of Delhi. Growing up, English was a third language, after Hindi and Punjabi, he said.

“We had a pretty frugal life,” Kapoor said. Though his mother worked as a nurse and his father as a doctor, they worked in a “public sector” hospital and the family lived in a subsidized apartment, he said.

He called himself fortunate in “comparison to the deep, deep poverty that is present in India,” which he saw in his neighborhood growing up.

His background gives him “a sense of disempowerment,” he said, comparing an immigrant’s concern about speaking English with an accent to what people experience in court.

For many in court, “you’re going to a place you’re not that familiar with,” Kapoor said. “People are speaking a version of a language that you’re not deeply fluent with, and other people around you seem to have a better idea of what’s really going on and what’s expected.”

He wasn’t always looking to become a practicing lawyer. Kapoor attended the University of Iowa in his home state in the United States. He became interested in sociology.

“I have been fascinated for a long time with how people organize their lives; how does our identity form?” Kapoor said.

He enrolled in a graduate program to earn an advanced sociology degree and a law degree. At the time, he was interested in teaching.

“Having a law degree, I think I felt that would make me a better teacher and a better researcher,” said Kapoor, who ultimately earned a master’s degree in sociology.

Kapoor taught at the University of Montana, teaching “issues of gender, race, inequality, stratification,” he said.

But once he settled on practicing law, he said he didn’t hesitate in choosing a role as a public defender, as he had an interest in public service and “issues of community.”

It was a job where he said he put in the work and others took notice, encouraging him to seek a judicial appointment.

“I had over 1,200 clients as a public defender,” Kapoor said. “I was in court nearly every day, sometimes multiple times a day, working with very vulnerable people,” Kapoor said.

As a judge, he spoke of his efforts to build trust in the system. It’s important to read reports from social welfare agencies before court hearings in dependency court, for example, he said.

“I want those parents to feel a trust in the system, that the courts are not here to snatch their babies or to remove their children. The courts are here to figure out, hey, what’s the thing that’s causing the harm potentially to the child,” Kapoor said.

He offers time breaks to people in the “high emotion place” that a courtroom can be so they can gather themselves and ultimately “express their feeling,” he said.

“I try to think of, how can I best be of service to this person, these facts, and the law that applies in these circumstances,” Kapoor said, calling that a skill built through experience.

“I’ve been doing the job, doing it well, and have experience with thousands and thousands of hearings,” he said.

His campaign cites endorsements from not only attorneys, but also former Gov. Kate Brown, State Sen. James Manning, State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, Eugene Mayor Kaarin Knudson and two former mayors, Lucy Vinis and Kitty Piercey.

‘A heartfelt conversation hundreds of times’

As a defense attorney, Kapoor said he believes “many people saw me in court attending to my clients as an aware and compassionate person.”

In one-on-one talks with some clients who had drug issues, he said he’d discuss their “clean date,” the last time they had used a prohibited or addictive substance.

For Kapoor, it would be a chance to do some math and count up all the moments since that date, always presenting them with a large number.

He’d then describe stressful situations – be it a car breaking down, an overdue bill or a hot water heater going out – and tell them, “In that moment, you may be triggered, and I want you to look back and tell yourself, you’re the person that made the right decision for yourself 400,000 times,” referring back to his previous “clean date” calculations done in front of the client.

In those many moments, “that’s who you are,” Kapoor said he’d tell them. “That’s who you are.”

As a judge, he said he cannot emote with clients and must stay neutral, but he’s delivered similar messages from the bench.

“Our community, like many communities, is dealing with an intersection of a lot of problems,” Kapoor said, listing homelessness, addiction and mental health as three top concerns.

“There’s hardly a case I can think of that I have presided over that involves substance abuse where I did not take the time to connect with a person, both to congratulate them on a good job – you know, ‘12 million moments you’ve made the right decision for yourself’ – or to hold them accountable,” Kapoor said.

As a judge, “I’ve engaged in a heartfelt conversation hundreds of times when that is the issue,” he said, adding, “I think I don’t know how to be a different judge.”

Candidates provided answers in their own words to questions from Lookout. Our questions are in bold, followed by their responses. (Click here to go back to the start of the article):

This section has been updated to correct the spelling of the name of candidate Katina Saint Marie.

Briefly describe your judicial philosophy and what’s needed to be a good judge:

Kapoor:

—Uphold the rule of law
—Meaningful access to the justice system
—Everyone deserves respect and dignity
—Thoughtful decision-making

My judicial philosophy centers around democratic legitimacy and equal treatment under the law. This means that all people must have access to the law, courts, legal representation and fair process, regardless of whether they have wealth or power. It means that everyone who comes before the court is treated with respect and dignity. It also means the jury system is preeminent — the jury process is the ultimate check on power when ordinary citizens come together to make findings of fact.

Saint Marie:

A judge’s job is to follow the law. That sounds simple, but it requires discipline. Every case deserves the same level of care, and a judge should not approach any case with a predetermined view of the outcome. Laws and statutes provide clear guidance and authority to the court, and a judge must follow them carefully — regardless of personal opinions or preferences.

But following the law is not all that’s needed. A good judge must also be timely and prepared — which means reading every filing, checking all correct boxes when forms are used, and understanding the record before a hearing begins. In my experience as a pro tem judge, I have seen how much depends on those details — a missed checkbox on a dependency order can trigger an appeal and prolong uncertainty for a child.
And a good judge must have the right temperament. Fairness is not abstract to the people who depend on the court. It shapes whether they leave feeling dismissed and lost, or whether they leave understanding that the law heard them and took them seriously. People may not always be happy with the outcome, but they should leave knowing they were heard and that the process was fair.

If I could sum up my judicial philosophy, it would be this: follow the law with precision, do the preparation, and never forget that the people in the courtroom are real people whose lives will be affected by what happens there.

How would you describe your practice of law before becoming a judge?

Kapoor:

—Strong advocacy for some of the poorest and most vulnerable community members
—Ensuring due process and holding the State to its burdens
—Understanding and respecting different perspectives
—Finding common ground to achieve better outcomes

Before being appointed and elected as a judge, I worked as an attorney for Public Defender Services of Lane County. I represented more than 1200 clients who were typically in difficult circumstances related to issues involving lack of shelter, food security, transportation, and the typical support structures many of us take for granted, along with addiction and mental health issues, on top of legal concerns.

I was in court in front of judges nearly every day, upholding constitutional rights for community members, making sure the state met its burden of proof and evidentiary requirements, while carrying a large volume of cases involving serious crimes. Public defense is one of the few jobs noted in the Constitution, and is critical to holding the government accountable to its obligations with respect to due process and constitutional guarantees against illegal search and seizures and other fundamental rights.

Saint Marie:

Since 2007, I have spent nearly two decades in Lane County courtrooms handling the full range of cases that circuit court sees every day: family law, criminal defense, child welfare proceedings, protective orders, stalking cases, and civil disputes. I have argued contested motions, conducted cross-examinations, and represented people in proceedings where the outcome affected families, livelihoods, and liberty. My clients have included domestic violence survivors, children in foster care, parents navigating custody disputes, and defendants in criminal matters.

Earlier in my career, I helped build The Portia Project, a nonprofit that provided legal services to incarcerated women at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility — Oregon’s only women’s prison. I served as General Counsel and Executive Director, work recognized with the University of Oregon’s Bandiero Public Interest Law Award. We worked with expectant mothers to identify relatives or trusted friends who could serve as guardians, so their newborns could leave the hospital for prepared homes rather than foster care. That work contributed to ending the shackling of incarcerated women during labor in Oregon.

I also served as Interim Director of the University of Oregon’s Domestic Violence Clinic, teaching law students how to represent survivors in court. And through my private practice at Kruse & Saint Marie, I continue to represent people who are navigating the legal system during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.

This is not a record I assembled for a campaign. It is a career built in sustained service to this community.

What did you learn that will help you as a judge or that has helped you as a judge?

Kapoor:

—Give people time to present their case
—Listen and engage
—Get it right with thoughtful decision-making
—Learn from experience. As a Judge I have presided over thousands of hearings and nearly all areas of law regularly before the court

My journey to the bench started when colleagues and judges suggested I should consider serving on the bench, after they observed the way I represented clients in court. They encouraged me to take up this level of public service; I was not seeking a position of power.

My work as a public defender gave me a practical understanding of constitutional rights, procedural fairness, and firsthand experience with the most marginalized members of our community who often end up in court or cannot afford representation when life circumstances, like divorce and custody issues bring them to court. As a result, I learned to communicate complex legal topics effectively and empathetically, and have a more nuanced understanding of systemic issues that play out in the courtroom, as a judge.

I brought to the bench on-the-ground experience with court procedure, trials, hearings and negotiations, which form the backbone of court work. Public defense work is all about upholding due process and individual rights, while promoting an impartial system through a large volume of cases. As a judge I balance this with holding people accountable and making tough decisions based on the facts and rule of law.

Over the last six years of doing the work of an elected Circuit Court Judge, I presided over many thousands of hearings, over all areas of law that regularly come before the court, including some of the most complex and emotionally-charged issues, from custody disputes to major felonies. This depth of experience represents the investment the community made when they overwhelmingly elected me in 2020, after a large and diverse group of attorneys and community members in the county and state vetted me for appointment, based on my qualifications, experience and standing in the community.

Saint Marie:

I learned to listen before I speak. Early in my career, I wanted to jump in and solve the problem. Over time, I realized that people — especially people in crisis — need to feel heard before they can hear you. Now, when I sit down with a client, I let them say what they need to say. And at some point, I sit back and ask: would you like to know what I think about your situation and how the law applies? By then, they usually say yes. That skill transfers directly to the bench, where the single most important thing a judge can do is listen to the people in front of her before deciding.

I also learned, from years of working inside Oregon’s corrections system, that accountability and dignity are not opposites. The women I met at Coffee Creek were answering for their crimes. But they were also trying to do right by the people who depended on them — especially their children. A justice system that takes rehabilitation seriously has to leave room for people to act with responsibility and care, even while being held accountable. That perspective shapes how I approach sentencing and every other decision that affects someone’s life.

And I learned something practical: the details matter. I have seen how a missed checkbox on a court order or leaving out an important provision can prolong a child’s uncertainty for months. Being careful with the paperwork is not a minor administrative task. It is part of doing justice.

Does your life experience shape who you are as a judge? If so, how? If not, why not?

Kapoor:

My life experience absolutely shapes who I am as a judge. As a trained structural sociologist I studied social and legal frameworks, including the importance of the jury process and the value of our adversarial system. I have studied structural features that create unfair or unequal outcomes for regular people based on lack of money, education, or other resources. As an award-winning teacher I have also taught hundreds of students topics of fairness, justice, and community belonging.

The driving values behind my work are: (1) everyone deserves respect and dignity; (2) following the rule of law is essential; and (3) members of the community deserve meaningful access to justice.

As a person of color and an immigrant I have first hand experience of how institutions and systems can be difficult to navigate. Growing up relatively poor, I understand the struggles people can face when they are struggling to make ends meet, on top of other adversities. I deeply appreciate the diversity of people who appear before the court and entrust the court to attend to their situations. I endeavor to make my courtroom a safe place for people from all walks of life.

Saint Marie:

Yes. My first experience in a courtroom came before I went to college or law school. I was a young parent in a divorce case — scared and unsure what to expect. I also had to get a restraining order during a very frightening time in my life. The judge who heard my case listened, spoke clearly, and said words that gave me hope. I left knowing I had been heard and treated fairly.

That experience is the reason I became a lawyer. And it is the reason I care so deeply about how people are treated in the courtroom. I know what it feels like to walk through those doors not knowing what will happen, to struggle to afford a lawyer, to depend on a stranger in a robe to take your situation seriously. Most of the people who come to circuit court are in some version of what I went through. They are dealing with family crises, safety concerns, financial stress, and the weight of decisions they did not choose.

Working with incarcerated mothers at Coffee Creek taught me that a person can be held accountable for their crimes and still be trying to do right by her children — that protecting the public and leaving room for human repair are not competing values, but both essential to a fair system.

My life experience does not tell me how to rule. The law does that. But it shapes how I treat the people who come before me. It reminds me that every person in the courtroom has a life outside that room — and that how the court treats them matters long after the hearing ends.

What does being respectful as a judge mean to you?

Kapoor:

Being respectful as a judge in my experience means listening to and engaging with the individuals before me. This also means understanding how people have been impacted by their experiences or how their health and wellness impacts their ability to communicate. For me it means taking the time to learn about kids on the spectrum, for example, so I can better understand and communicate when working with them.

While I sit on the bench every day, I recognize that the people in front of me may be in court for the first and only time in their lives. It is significant and intimidating, and I show my respect and understanding by giving my attention to what they have to say, taking the time to read what they or their attorneys have submitted to me, and making principled decisions based on legal precedent. I also listen to the community of experienced and talented professionals, volunteers and providers of services, who show up daily in the courtroom, are out in the field, and have insights that I am eager to apply toward positive outcomes.

Saint Marie:

Respect starts before the hearing begins. It means reading the file, understanding the case, and being prepared so that the people who took time off work, arranged childcare, and showed up on time are not left waiting for a judge who is not ready. Showing up on time and prepared is one of the most basic forms of respect a judge can offer.
During the hearing, respect means listening — genuinely listening — before deciding. It means speaking clearly and avoiding legal jargon so that people can actually follow what is happening in their own case. It means maintaining composure even when a case is contentious, ensuring every party has a fair opportunity to be heard, and never using the power of the bench to belittle, rush, or dismiss someone.

Respect also extends beyond the parties. Jurors give their time. Witnesses may be nervous or afraid. Family members may be sitting in the gallery carrying enormous stress. Victims of crime may be observing a sentencing and waiting to read a statement. Court staff keep the system running. Everyone in that courtroom deserves to be treated as though they matter — because they do.

And respect is what people carry with them after they leave. In family court especially, people may not be happy with the outcome. In many cases, one side will not be. But they should leave knowing the process was clear, that they were heard, and that their dignity was not treated as secondary to the court’s convenience. A courtroom where people feel dismissed or confused is a courtroom that is failing, even if the legal rulings are technically correct.

Please name an issue of concern in Oregon’s justice system that you believe can be improved. How might it be made better?

Kapoor:

There are many issues that challenge the justice system, from lack of building infrastructure to limited funds for services that support people’s ability to simply get to court. I have great respect for the professionals in our community who show up every day to provide incredible services and representation to this community. At the same time—I am certain many of us agree—more is needed every day.

As our community grows and the court serves more populations with differing needs, I see judges making efforts to be better prepared to serve those needs, and I firmly believe the more we reflect the people who come in front of us, the better resourced we will be at truly serving the community and providing access to justice.

This is one clear way we can make the justice system better, and each member of the community can help make that difference by voting in the May 19 primary for people like me, who have demonstrated a commitment to public service and justice for all, and who reflect the community we serve.

Saint Marie:

Access to justice for people who come to court without a lawyer.

Increasingly, people are navigating the court system on their own — filing paperwork, meeting deadlines, and appearing in hearings without legal representation. This is especially common in family law, where the stakes are enormous. Frequently, people cannot afford an attorney. They are trying to understand unfamiliar forms and procedures while also managing children, work schedules, financial stress, and sometimes safety concerns. For many, even getting to court on time requires arranging childcare or missing work.

The system was designed for lawyers. When people without lawyers are expected to operate within it as though they have one, the gap between what the court requires and what people can realistically do becomes a barrier to fairness.

There are concrete steps that can help. Court reminder systems — similar to the appointment reminders people receive from medical offices and other services — could reduce missed court dates that result in automatic loss of a case. Courts could also implement methods to receive regular feedback from the community to identify barriers that prevent people from successfully navigating the system. Our court already strives to improve, but systems should evolve so that outdated processes are replaced with ones that are genuinely user-friendly for the people the court serves.

I have spent my career on all sides of this gap — as someone who once struggled to afford a lawyer, as an attorney who has represented people the legal system often overlooks, and as a pro tem judge who presides over hearings and trials when people are representing themselves. I understand the problem from the inside, and I believe judges should be part of the solution.