The 1st District Court race between Judge John Mitchell and Coeur d’Alene attorney Rami Amaro has been a three-ring circus in Idaho’s five northern counties.

Mitchell supporters have claimed that Amaro hasn’t practiced law for 10 years, the minimum requirement to be an Idaho district judge, and that she illegally contributed to the Republican Party when her law office paid $650 to buy a platinum sponsor at the Lincoln Day Dinner. A key Amaro backer has filed three complaints against Mitchell, contending among other things he has misused stationery and mischaracterized the reasons for being disqualified from cases.

Most of the accusations are frivolous and will be forgotten after Tuesday’s election.

Of more substance from the 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. Mitchell, who worked as a trial attorney for 15 years, is a better option.

Judge Mitchell in person is different than the “Judge Hug-A-Thug” character painted by his challenger’s supporters. He’s deliberative, intelligent, kind. He doesn’t dodge questions. He said he’s dumbfounded by the hundreds of disqualifications filed against him. He suspects that two deputy public defenders disqualify him often because he told their boss, Public Defender John Adams, about their poor performances in his courtroom. Mitchell said he’s reluctant to cross the barrier that separates judges from attorneys by asking individual attorneys why they disqualify him.

The judge admits he looks for ways to make rehabilitation part of the sentencing process because he wants to give defendants hope before they’re shipped to prison. As part of that philosophy, he started the pioneering Mental Health Drug Court, which differs from traditional drug courts that target only drug addiction. His drug court deals with those who also have significant mental illness. The program is promising.

Impressively, in an Idaho State Bar poll of local attorneys, Mitchell scored almost twice as high as Amaro in areas such as “integrity and independence” and “knowledge and understanding of the law.” His candidacy is also backed by other judges, four of five North Idaho sheriffs, and a bipartisan who’s who of local lawyers, which raises questions about the lawyers in the offices of public defender and prosecutor who regularly disqualify him.

Mitchell’s a relatively new judge, having been appointed to his position 4 1/2 years ago and then winning a retention election. Amaro has done a service by highlighting his shortcomings. He should learn from this bruising election battle and be a better judge in the future.