All four candidates in these two races seem to think that experience in criminal law is the key to being a judge, and any possible appearance of bias shown by the endorsements mentioned above should only make them more qualified in the eyes of their target voter.
While I certainly don't expect to every see candidates for Judge running on claims such as "Meth Users Choice" it might be nice to see a candidate proudly claim experience with early diversion programs for youthful offenders. Similarly, demonstrated experience with other aspects of the law, such as landlord-tenant issues, or complex business transactions might make for a well-rounded addition to be bench.
Some of these candidates have private-sector experience, but in the rush to show 'tough on crime' credentials it gets lost in the shuffle.
Similarly, management experience to help keep the court's amazing volume of cases moving forward in this period of strained government resources would be something that I, as a voter, would look on very favorably. If any of these candidate have that experience, they chose not to highlight it in their pamphlet statements.
The result is four candidates, two of whom will be judges after this election, who appear to think the voters want law-and-order judges who can work closely with prosecutors and law enforcement, but who are presumably unbiased and can judge the cases before them impartially.
Did they sell you? & What attributes are you looking for when you hire a judge this June? &
-Citizen Voices blogger Chuck Hartley is an attorney who lives in Escondido.
