"Most of the accusations are frivolous and will be forgotten after Tuesday's election. Of more substance from the (Rami) Amaro camp are the criticisms that the judge has been disqualified without cause too many times, that too many of his rulings have been overturned on appeal, and that he opts for rehabilitating offenders rather than punishment and protecting society when sentencing molesters and other dangerous criminals. It isn't easy separating fact from fiction in this race or deciding whose statistics are trustworthy. Each candidate has strengths and significant weaknesses. Amaro deserves credit for forcing a judge to defend his record. Yet, she has little to no criminal law experience and her eligibility to run was in question until Secretary of State Ben Ysursa ruled she met minimum practice requirements. (Judge John) Mitchell, who worked as a trial attorney for 15 years, is a better option."
DFO: My personal preference was to take the runnerup for the appointment to the new 1st District Court position and dub him/her as the winner of this spot. Sorry, I can't provide a link to the rest of the editorial from home.