Protect yourself: Vote No on Question 1
Voting Yes on Question No.1 to popularly elect our judges could be disastrous for you. Imagine, you and your lawyer have worked your way through an overloaded court system and are now ready for your day in court, but you just discovered that the other party’s attorney has signed on as campaign chair for the judge’s re-election bid, and his firm is the largest contributor to the judge’s campaign fund. Your attorney backed the challenger in the last election. Tough luck.
If dollars thrown at campaign ads, influence pedaling and negative campaigning is what you’re into, vote yes on Question No.1. On the other hand, if you believe our courts should provide a some degree of justice in a process reasonably free from “special interests” and political agendas, vote no to keep money and political influence out of our courts.
In addition, you must admit the most popular candidate may not make the most qualified judge. Personally, I’m a big fan of Sponge Bob Squarepants, but I don’t want him ruling on my custody hearing. Most of us would prefer the judge deciding or presiding over our case to be an experienced attorney, familiar with the rule of law, and not simply the most attractive candidate.
Finally, vote yes if you are proud of our county’s recent political history with the likes of Phil Kline. The people of this county clearly chose to reject the dominance of politics in our district attorney’s office when Steve Howe defeated Kline in the last primary by a landslide. Kline’s supporters drove the petition to place this question on the ballot and spent thousands of dollars promoting this notion of “fairness in the courts.” If “fairness” to you means last-minute backroom political deals, political staffing of public offices and advancement of political causes over service to the community, join the supporters of Question No. 1. Kline will thank you for your vote.