These appeared in Saturday's paper. You'll have to read it to see the arguments behind them.
District Judge
LaDonna Lanning — (I've taken some heat for this one. Some attorneys says she's not professional and doesn't get along with others)
County Commission
Eddie McGowan
Congress
Jean Schodorf - Republican
Raj Goyle - Democrat
U.S. Senate
Jerry Moran - Republican
David Haley - Democrat
Sec. of State
Elizabeth Ensley - Republican
Chris Biggs - Democratc
Attorney General
Derek Schmidt - Republican
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I agree with you on LaDonna Lanning for judge and Moran for Senate.
Has anyone asked the local attorneys who they recommend? I think that might be the most important thing to consider.
I disagree with you on LaDonna Lanning for judge and Moran for Senate.
As a local attorney, I am voting for Chris Smith. He has always been fair, professional and considerate. Unlike some of the other candidates (LaDonna especially).
I wish someone would poll the local attorneys and the court clerks. I doubt Ms Lanning would get any votes.
I don't like that Smith had to have help on a slam dunk case (Thurber) and changed parties to run in a less challenging race. And he plea bargains way too much.
Lanning represnts women in divorce cases mostly. It makes sense that other attorneys think she's hard to get along with.
That she's hard to get along with, or that she doesn't have the experience for all of the other matters a judge might face?
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Better watch how you talk about our new judge.
ummm...Anon @ 9:07am....a Judge has to handle matters of Law, nothing else. Do you think there is something besides judging according to law involved in the position? Do you think a prerequisite of a Judgeship requires that they "get along" with the attorneys appearing before them?
I think there are various areas to the law. There is the criminal which is a world in itself, and in this case probably almost all civil.
In civil, besides divorce, there are suits in the various industries, from medical to law enforcement to employee/employer. There are personal suits from a vehicle accident to slipping on a patch of ice. There are personal things like divorce and child support. There are contractual disputes and a huge number of other things that a judge must be prepared for. And then there is the matter of the local attorneys knowing how the judge will respond. Will it be totally neutral and the letter of the law, or how the law is understood by that particular judge? And if anyone disagrees, ask yourself why it takes 9 supreme court justices.
I think the wise thing would be to get an opinion from all of the attorneys in the county, or at least a good polling. How can we make a good decision without the proper information?
I don't think anyone has banned the local attorneys from voicing or otherwise expressing their opinions.
Maybe they should take out an add outlining either the desired tenetes of a district judge or, perhaps, endorsing a candidate.
I do know it is not illegal for local attorneys to speak up during an election year for a judge seat. Maybe they just think it's not wise. You suppose?
Post a Comment