Although Kirstin Blaise Lobato still has a year to serve for another crime, it looks like the AG’s office is not going to challenge a motion for time served. [Fox5Vegas]
After the first day of filing, only three candidates have filed for the three openings on the Supreme Court. If you’re interested in filing for the Supreme Court, go here. If you want to know if anyone else has filed, keep an eye on the NV SOS elections twitter account @nvelect [RJ]
Filing also opened up for three district court seats and several justice court seats, drawing 24 applicants the first day. The most contested position–Goodsprings Justice of the Peace. Click here to see who has filed. Also, which of these judges seeking to be retained deserves to draw an opponent? Filing is open until January 12.
I'm by no means the authority, but I'm gonna predict no challengers for the three district court judges. Doing a contested election for a two year term on the bench is hardly worth it, also, who wants to be the one who challenges Tierra? For JPs, I think someone should challenge James Dean Leavitt for 1–he shouldn't just be handed it even though with his name and political experience he is a formidable opponent. Of the sitting JPs, Melanie Andress-Tobiason was publicly reprimanded last year, but I'm not sure if that makes her susceptible to a challenger. Sciscento didn't get a challenger last time, well liked, so expect him to coast to another term. Zimmerman and Cruz, no clue whether they deserve a challenge. Jeff Rogan and Melisa Delagarza running for new seat in Dept 15, there could be more competition in that one, but Melisa is favored early.
In Henderson, Bateman is going to go unchallenged.
In Northtown, challengers are always welcome if they exist. Also, Judge Tyrell's email address is lawdawg2012? Time for some confessions on the blog?
As to Leavitt, even though he is apparently not of the locally famous Leavitt family(unless it's some remote relation) the public will assume he is of the Leavitt legal family. That built in name-recognition and credibility is further cemented and enhanced by him having served as an elected regent. So, with the name recognition and connections, he may get a free pass.
Sciscento remains well-liked and highly regarded, so he may also get a free pass.
Zimmerman and Cruz may be of middling quality on the bench, but Zimmerman is long-serving with good connections and solid voter-base, while Cruz was able to unseat a local legal legend(Bill Jansen). Plus, both, in addition to being incumbents, are females, and that gives them a few extra points.
Andress-Tobiason is likewise safe despite the ethical opinion. She is an attractive, affable female incumbent, with great local connections and what I understand to be some significant family resources. The ethical matter is too arcane and confusing to the average voter. If she had taken money or done something clearly corrupt, the voters could get a grip on something like that and be righteously offended. But what she did was to try to help a dying litigant by(if memory serves) trying to secure them some sort of extension or accommodation in a case being heard out-of-sate(out of the country in fact). That actually makes her sound sympathetic and compassionate. But if some one answers that by saying "yeah but she technically lacked proper subject matter jurisdiction to do so as the case was assigned to a different court", the average voter will only be confused by such explanation.
And, yes, Tierra is safe.
The judge, who will remain nameless although everyone knows who I am referring to, who berates court clerks on the record and throws the constitution across the room to express the contempt he believes recalcitrant jurors have to their duty to serve,I believe is not on the ballot until 2020. But that could be interesting. He has been spoken to about the temper tantrums, but none of it seems to have much effect.
"he is apparently not of the locally famous Leavitt"
Bio says he went to BYU, so he's definitely a part of the local Leavitts. They all descended from the same Bunkerville polygamist, Dudley Leavitt who had five wives and over 40 grandkids. Today, his progeny are spread all across Clark, Washington and Iron counties.
Tierra is deer in the headlights awful. Yes there are issues with other District Court Judges but that does not change the fact that she is awful and deserves an opponent regardless of demographics.
Are you referring to civil matters in Tierra's department? She's very well versed in criminal as I understand it. Any new judge is going to be up against a learning curve if they are put on a split docket. I've heard the same about other judges; if they come from the civil arena, they initially have difficulties with criminal matters, and vice versa. I've heard she at least reads everything herself and is focused on learning and becoming more knowledgeable on the civil side, as opposed to some judges who simply rule based on what their law clerks have briefed for them. If she deserves an opponent, the other two certainly do as well.
As 1240 mentioned about the nameless Judge and the Court Clerk bashing on the record, I'm surprised the RJ or local TV stations have not obtained the JAVS courtroom video recordings and reported on this. The now former Court Clerk has left the DC Clerks Office and taken a job in the DA office… For less money I hear…
I am certain that other people have considered this development but with Silver and Cadish running, the Supreme Court which for decades was a Boys Club could go to being majority female. California is majority female. Not sure if any other states are majority female.
Lots of people care when the judiciary is largely considered a (white) male-dominated organization. It is a relatively remarkable achievement in a relatively short period of time since Shearing was the first female justice at all.
I love that Paul Powell commercial!! But I don't practice PI law.
Guest
Anonymous
January 3, 2018 11:31 pm
I think 12:40, although verbose and needing lessons in brevity, and needing an editor, is largely correct about the assessment of each race.
Some take issue with the representation that Tierra will draw little or no opposition, and they base their opinion based on her relative merits as a judge.
But 12:40 is not claiming she is a wonderful judge. Instead, 12:40, as well as 11:27, are simply pointing out that no one of viability will challenge her due to factors aside from legal ability.
He deserves to be demoted. He deserved to be fired. However this is nothing more than returning him to the job he had before Myrhe was fired. Same thing happened when Brower was appointed. Myrhe was not demoted.
The bigger news is that DOJ went with a complete outsider to be appointed to the position. I will be interested to see how the politics of bringing in someone from outside Nevada is going to sit with those inside the office and with Heller (who presumably was not consulted on this appointment).
Interestingly I am not certain that it was not a demotion. The Press Release states that Myrhe is being removed as Interim USA effective 2 days notice and that Elieson is not nominated for appointment as US Attorney but instead is being installed to act as Interim US Attorney, which means that Myrhe is not being allowed to hold the office even pending a permanent political appointment. This really is a move to yank him out of his office and put him underneath someone else who is a real prosecutor and not merely a political appointee.
Who knows– maybe he will go the route of Eric Johnson and try to have the Governor overlook all of his unethical conduct over the years and get appointed to be a Judge of a Court that he has never practiced in.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2018 4:27 am
I am noticing some supporters backing out of supporting Cadish. Good.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2018 6:11 pm
All of those attorneys who invested in marijuana businesses and tailored their practice to marijuana might be having second thoughts.
I would be afraid if I were an owner of an MJ business. The current admnistration wants to stir everything up and divert attention away from the crazy things they are trying to do and not do. Now, we have a new "acting" US Attorney too.
Bad move, and dangerous in the short run, but this too shall pass. Does Jeff Sessions represent the future of this country and society, or the last gasp of its past? People like him realize that their demographic is slipping away and that this is their last chance.
Jeff Sessions represents the man with the power to destroy many peoples' lives over the next 3 years, 2 weeks. While it might be his last chance, that will be little consolation to the people who he destroys. It is like giving Bumbling Steve Myrhe power to control nationwide justice policy. Frightening.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2018 8:41 pm
Vinny Ginn stepping up to challenge James Dean Leavitt. Also, I don't think that Vinny is doing this, but remember in 2014 when James Dean Leavitt filed to run against Gloria Sturman and then withdrew after the filing period so that she was elected unopposed? Similar things could happen here, so if you think a judge deserves a challenger don't be afraid to step up even if someone else.
Also, there is a high likelihood that campaign managers are posting on this blog to try and dissuade people from running against their candidates. I can't blame them, but be wary.
Not to mention that in judicial races, only lawyers have any idea which person might make a better judge. The vast majority of voters have no clue. So for an outsider it's better to have a crowded field. That way, you can win with a small plurality.
12:41PM January 4, 2018: It was really peculiar when James Dean Leavitt ran against Gloria Sturman and then withdrew. You raise an interesting issue. There is election maneuvering where candidates file to help an incumbent friend and keep others out of the race who will then have to run in a primary. Then they withdraw and protect their friend who is an incumbent. According to the newspaper you have political consultants who steer candidates into certain races which may not be in the candidates best interest. That being said I think Leavitt will win the JP race. Another person said even lawyers don't know who will make a better judge. Not only is this true but in the appointment process which looks at diversity and politics, the Selection Commission does not know who will make a better judge. The only thing an appointed system does is to take away the voice of the electorate in selecting judges. If anything should be changed it is the experience requirements for running for judge should be increased.
It is called Dave Thomas. There is a 2014 or 2015 Sun article about it. Do your research on the candidates.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2018 9:04 pm
I believe Ginn legitimately wants to be a judge, so I doubt he would let himself be manipulated and used as a straw man for someone else to get elected.
That said, I don't think he poses a significant challenge for Leavitt. When he ran before, he was willing to expend some funds for some large A Frame signs, but that was presumably primarily from his own funds.
Don't forget the new dynamic to the judicial elections. If there are 3 or more candidates and a single candidate receives more than 50% in the primary, they are declared the winner without a general election.
Is that on account of potentially wonderful judicial traits that he appears to possess, or more via default because you don't care for the other option?
I am sure that I am in a distinct minority here, but in light of the NSC decision in Ramsey v. The City Of N. Las Vegas (133 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 16) I do not believe that any judicial candidate should ever again go unopposed.
Under our laws, an unopposed candidate automatically wins the term so long as they receive at least a single vote (their own, perhaps?). Once elected, the voters have virtually no way to remove them until the next election (6 years away) and only if they draw opposition during that election.
It is not as if the prospects of drawing opposition are the same as with the typical political office as the rules for qualifying to run reduce the pool of eligible candidates from hundreds of thousands to under ten thousand (probably in actuality under five thousand, statewide).
Previously, I didn't have major heartburn with the concept of the automatic election if unopposed under the belief that the voters could, if they later desired remove the judge through a recall election. Granted such an election is incredibly difficult to succeed under, but in extreme cases retained the rights of the voters to terminate their employee prior to the expiration of the term of office.
Under the new rules, they may have a judge foisted upon them whom they can not prevent as an unopposed candidate, and whom they can not remove. To me that is a complete divestiture of their voting franchise.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2018 9:52 pm
What 1:09 references is not a new dynamic despite some rule changes you mention.The basics of electing and appointing judges in Nevada remains essentially unchanged.
First, for decades we have had the situation where subpar judges get automatically re-elected if no one signs up to run against them.
Secondly, when you reference a potentially undesirable judge getting foisted upon people(without their say) by being appointed when there is a vacancy, that has always been the case as well.
We don't have a pure election process for judges even if some classify it as such. It is a hybrid election/appointment process. It has always been elections if a newly created position, or if an incumbent is running for re-election. But for unexpected mid-term vacancies, those have always been filled by appointment, and that appointee must then run again in the next cycle.
As for your belief that all judges should be opposed, I understand that, but consider the harsh realities. Most judges run unopposed because to run a viable challenge against an incumbent, it usually takes several hundred thousand dollars. Many challengers have spent well north of$200,000 or more of their own money just to lose badly to a sitting judge.
And the judge usually raises most of their money without using their own funds, while challengers usually need to largely fiancé their own campaigns.
Admittedly, there are exceptions to these usual dynamics–such as when a judge is embroilled in a highly publicized public scandal and/or is almost universally despised and dreaded. In such instances, the judges don't collect nearly as many donations as they usually would, while the opponent is able to attract a fair number of donations.
That should be "finance" their own campaign, not "fiancé" their own campaign.
But if in fact you have a wealthy fiancé…
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2018 10:15 pm
I'm willing to run against one of the sitting JPs, just don't know which one is most deserving.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2018 11:42 pm
You're too principled. Are you out to serve the legal community by targeting the incumbent who most deserves an opponent(regardless of how politically viable the incumbent is or is not), or are you out to actually win, even if it means targeting a decent judge who happens to be more vulnerable than a poorly-performing judge?
Sometimes, nicer judges who are fairly well-regarded, are not as politically strong as some SOB judge who is really juiced in and has a lot of connections and name recognition.
So, if your main goal is to serve the attorneys by making life difficult for a disliked judge by running against him/her, then you may be willing to do so even if your chances of success appear remote.
But if serving the attorneys is largely irrelevant, and your goal is to be a judge and win, even if it means removing a judge who is fairly well-liked, then you may have to make that controversial decision.
Fortunately, though, often strong judges are the ones who are widely well-liked and treat people well, and that is one of the ingredients of their success, while the SOB judges don't have a lot of support.
But, remember, it is often the opposite. the SOB is sometimes really politically strong and powerful.
Rob Martin facing off against Victor Lee Miller in Boulder City appears to be an interesting race.
Is Batman running again?
I want Batman, Micky Vale. Micky Vale.
I'm by no means the authority, but I'm gonna predict no challengers for the three district court judges. Doing a contested election for a two year term on the bench is hardly worth it, also, who wants to be the one who challenges Tierra? For JPs, I think someone should challenge James Dean Leavitt for 1–he shouldn't just be handed it even though with his name and political experience he is a formidable opponent. Of the sitting JPs, Melanie Andress-Tobiason was publicly reprimanded last year, but I'm not sure if that makes her susceptible to a challenger. Sciscento didn't get a challenger last time, well liked, so expect him to coast to another term. Zimmerman and Cruz, no clue whether they deserve a challenge. Jeff Rogan and Melisa Delagarza running for new seat in Dept 15, there could be more competition in that one, but Melisa is favored early.
In Henderson, Bateman is going to go unchallenged.
In Northtown, challengers are always welcome if they exist. Also, Judge Tyrell's email address is lawdawg2012? Time for some confessions on the blog?
FYI, in 2012, Zimmerman beat Amy Chelini by 54.71% to 45.29%. Cruz beat Bill Jansen 50.09% to 49.91%. Tobiasson was unchallenged.
The analysis of 11:27 appears spot on.
As to Leavitt, even though he is apparently not of the locally famous Leavitt family(unless it's some remote relation) the public will assume he is of the Leavitt legal family. That built in name-recognition and credibility is further cemented and enhanced by him having served as an elected regent. So, with the name recognition and connections, he may get a free pass.
Sciscento remains well-liked and highly regarded, so he may also get a free pass.
Zimmerman and Cruz may be of middling quality on the bench, but Zimmerman is long-serving with good connections and solid voter-base, while Cruz was able to unseat a local legal legend(Bill Jansen). Plus, both, in addition to being incumbents, are females, and that gives them a few extra points.
Andress-Tobiason is likewise safe despite the ethical opinion. She is an attractive, affable female incumbent, with great local connections and what I understand to be some significant family resources. The ethical matter is too arcane and confusing to the average voter. If she had taken money or done something clearly corrupt, the voters could get a grip on something like that and be righteously offended. But what she did was to try to help a dying litigant by(if memory serves) trying to secure them some sort of extension or accommodation in a case being heard out-of-sate(out of the country in fact). That actually makes her sound sympathetic and compassionate. But if some one answers that by saying "yeah but she technically lacked proper subject matter jurisdiction to do so as the case was assigned to a different court", the average voter will only be confused by such explanation.
And, yes, Tierra is safe.
The judge, who will remain nameless although everyone knows who I am referring to, who berates court clerks on the record and throws the constitution across the room to express the contempt he believes recalcitrant jurors have to their duty to serve,I believe is not on the ballot until 2020. But that could be interesting. He has been spoken to about the temper tantrums, but none of it seems to have much effect.
Why is Tierra safe? She is terrible.
"he is apparently not of the locally famous Leavitt"
Bio says he went to BYU, so he's definitely a part of the local Leavitts. They all descended from the same Bunkerville polygamist, Dudley Leavitt who had five wives and over 40 grandkids. Today, his progeny are spread all across Clark, Washington and Iron counties.
He's Canadian, and a distant cousin of some sort, as I understand it.
Except that he isn't descended from Dudley. He's from an earlier branch that went north, to Alberta, Canada. Check his Facebook page.
Why is Tierra terrible? I'd heard good things about her. Certainly more good about her than one of the other newly appointed District Court judges.
Tierra is deer in the headlights awful. Yes there are issues with other District Court Judges but that does not change the fact that she is awful and deserves an opponent regardless of demographics.
Are you referring to civil matters in Tierra's department? She's very well versed in criminal as I understand it. Any new judge is going to be up against a learning curve if they are put on a split docket. I've heard the same about other judges; if they come from the civil arena, they initially have difficulties with criminal matters, and vice versa. I've heard she at least reads everything herself and is focused on learning and becoming more knowledgeable on the civil side, as opposed to some judges who simply rule based on what their law clerks have briefed for them. If she deserves an opponent, the other two certainly do as well.
She is easily the weakest of Appointees Bailus, Jones and Jones.
Cruz and Leavitt will be drawing opponents
Good, I don't like either of them.
As 1240 mentioned about the nameless Judge and the Court Clerk bashing on the record, I'm surprised the RJ or local TV stations have not obtained the JAVS courtroom video recordings and reported on this. The now former Court Clerk has left the DC Clerks Office and taken a job in the DA office… For less money I hear…
Factual details…
Someone please challenge Zimmerman!
why?
I am certain that other people have considered this development but with Silver and Cadish running, the Supreme Court which for decades was a Boys Club could go to being majority female. California is majority female. Not sure if any other states are majority female.
Who the F cares?
Lots of people care when the judiciary is largely considered a (white) male-dominated organization. It is a relatively remarkable achievement in a relatively short period of time since Shearing was the first female justice at all.
Not voting for Cadish just because she is a woman.
Lobato ordered released.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/kirstin-lobato-freed-from-las-vegas-jail/
Great: The NSC "updated" it's horrible website so now it's even "better."
How is it worse?
I love 2:44's comment. Reminds me of the Paul Powell commercial. "He's hurt." Ha!!
I love that Paul Powell commercial!! But I don't practice PI law.
I think 12:40, although verbose and needing lessons in brevity, and needing an editor, is largely correct about the assessment of each race.
Some take issue with the representation that Tierra will draw little or no opposition, and they base their opinion based on her relative merits as a judge.
But 12:40 is not claiming she is a wonderful judge. Instead, 12:40, as well as 11:27, are simply pointing out that no one of viability will challenge her due to factors aside from legal ability.
But are those factors which truly make her unbeatable? Not certain about that.
Myhre demoted: https://twitter.com/NewsTreanor/status/948713055088648192
He deserves to be demoted. He deserved to be fired. However this is nothing more than returning him to the job he had before Myrhe was fired. Same thing happened when Brower was appointed. Myrhe was not demoted.
The bigger news is that DOJ went with a complete outsider to be appointed to the position. I will be interested to see how the politics of bringing in someone from outside Nevada is going to sit with those inside the office and with Heller (who presumably was not consulted on this appointment).
Correction: before BOGDEN was fired.
Interestingly I am not certain that it was not a demotion. The Press Release states that Myrhe is being removed as Interim USA effective 2 days notice and that Elieson is not nominated for appointment as US Attorney but instead is being installed to act as Interim US Attorney, which means that Myrhe is not being allowed to hold the office even pending a permanent political appointment. This really is a move to yank him out of his office and put him underneath someone else who is a real prosecutor and not merely a political appointee.
Who knows– maybe he will go the route of Eric Johnson and try to have the Governor overlook all of his unethical conduct over the years and get appointed to be a Judge of a Court that he has never practiced in.
I am noticing some supporters backing out of supporting Cadish. Good.
All of those attorneys who invested in marijuana businesses and tailored their practice to marijuana might be having second thoughts.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/jan/04/us-to-end-policy-that-let-legal-pot-flourish/
I would be afraid if I were an owner of an MJ business. The current admnistration wants to stir everything up and divert attention away from the crazy things they are trying to do and not do. Now, we have a new "acting" US Attorney too.
Bad move, and dangerous in the short run, but this too shall pass. Does Jeff Sessions represent the future of this country and society, or the last gasp of its past? People like him realize that their demographic is slipping away and that this is their last chance.
Jeff Sessions represents the man with the power to destroy many peoples' lives over the next 3 years, 2 weeks. While it might be his last chance, that will be little consolation to the people who he destroys. It is like giving Bumbling Steve Myrhe power to control nationwide justice policy. Frightening.
Vinny Ginn stepping up to challenge James Dean Leavitt. Also, I don't think that Vinny is doing this, but remember in 2014 when James Dean Leavitt filed to run against Gloria Sturman and then withdrew after the filing period so that she was elected unopposed? Similar things could happen here, so if you think a judge deserves a challenger don't be afraid to step up even if someone else.
Also, there is a high likelihood that campaign managers are posting on this blog to try and dissuade people from running against their candidates. I can't blame them, but be wary.
Not to mention that in judicial races, only lawyers have any idea which person might make a better judge. The vast majority of voters have no clue. So for an outsider it's better to have a crowded field. That way, you can win with a small plurality.
And even the lawyers don't all know who will make a better judge. It's a tricky thing.
12:41PM January 4, 2018: It was really peculiar when James Dean Leavitt ran against Gloria Sturman and then withdrew. You raise an interesting issue. There is election maneuvering where candidates file to help an incumbent friend and keep others out of the race who will then have to run in a primary. Then they withdraw and protect their friend who is an incumbent. According to the newspaper you have political consultants who steer candidates into certain races which may not be in the candidates best interest. That being said I think Leavitt will win the JP race. Another person said even lawyers don't know who will make a better judge. Not only is this true but in the appointment process which looks at diversity and politics, the Selection Commission does not know who will make a better judge. The only thing an appointed system does is to take away the voice of the electorate in selecting judges. If anything should be changed it is the experience requirements for running for judge should be increased.
It is called Dave Thomas. There is a 2014 or 2015 Sun article about it. Do your research on the candidates.
I believe Ginn legitimately wants to be a judge, so I doubt he would let himself be manipulated and used as a straw man for someone else to get elected.
That said, I don't think he poses a significant challenge for Leavitt. When he ran before, he was willing to expend some funds for some large A Frame signs, but that was presumably primarily from his own funds.
Don't forget the new dynamic to the judicial elections. If there are 3 or more candidates and a single candidate receives more than 50% in the primary, they are declared the winner without a general election.
Ginn has my support.
Is that on account of potentially wonderful judicial traits that he appears to possess, or more via default because you don't care for the other option?
No, I like Ginn.
I am sure that I am in a distinct minority here, but in light of the NSC decision in Ramsey v. The City Of N. Las Vegas (133 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 16) I do not believe that any judicial candidate should ever again go unopposed.
Under our laws, an unopposed candidate automatically wins the term so long as they receive at least a single vote (their own, perhaps?). Once elected, the voters have virtually no way to remove them until the next election (6 years away) and only if they draw opposition during that election.
It is not as if the prospects of drawing opposition are the same as with the typical political office as the rules for qualifying to run reduce the pool of eligible candidates from hundreds of thousands to under ten thousand (probably in actuality under five thousand, statewide).
Previously, I didn't have major heartburn with the concept of the automatic election if unopposed under the belief that the voters could, if they later desired remove the judge through a recall election. Granted such an election is incredibly difficult to succeed under, but in extreme cases retained the rights of the voters to terminate their employee prior to the expiration of the term of office.
Under the new rules, they may have a judge foisted upon them whom they can not prevent as an unopposed candidate, and whom they can not remove. To me that is a complete divestiture of their voting franchise.
What 1:09 references is not a new dynamic despite some rule changes you mention.The basics of electing and appointing judges in Nevada remains essentially unchanged.
First, for decades we have had the situation where subpar judges get automatically re-elected if no one signs up to run against them.
Secondly, when you reference a potentially undesirable judge getting foisted upon people(without their say) by being appointed when there is a vacancy, that has always been the case as well.
We don't have a pure election process for judges even if some classify it as such. It is a hybrid election/appointment process. It has always been elections if a newly created position, or if an incumbent is running for re-election. But for unexpected mid-term vacancies, those have always been filled by appointment, and that appointee must then run again in the next cycle.
As for your belief that all judges should be opposed, I understand that, but consider the harsh realities. Most judges run unopposed because to run a viable challenge against an incumbent, it usually takes several hundred thousand dollars. Many challengers have spent well north of$200,000 or more of their own money just to lose badly to a sitting judge.
And the judge usually raises most of their money without using their own funds, while challengers usually need to largely fiancé their own campaigns.
Admittedly, there are exceptions to these usual dynamics–such as when a judge is embroilled in a highly publicized public scandal and/or is almost universally despised and dreaded. In such instances, the judges don't collect nearly as many donations as they usually would, while the opponent is able to attract a fair number of donations.
That should be "finance" their own campaign, not "fiancé" their own campaign.
But if in fact you have a wealthy fiancé…
I'm willing to run against one of the sitting JPs, just don't know which one is most deserving.
You're too principled. Are you out to serve the legal community by targeting the incumbent who most deserves an opponent(regardless of how politically viable the incumbent is or is not), or are you out to actually win, even if it means targeting a decent judge who happens to be more vulnerable than a poorly-performing judge?
Sometimes, nicer judges who are fairly well-regarded, are not as politically strong as some SOB judge who is really juiced in and has a lot of connections and name recognition.
So, if your main goal is to serve the attorneys by making life difficult for a disliked judge by running against him/her, then you may be willing to do so even if your chances of success appear remote.
But if serving the attorneys is largely irrelevant, and your goal is to be a judge and win, even if it means removing a judge who is fairly well-liked, then you may have to make that controversial decision.
Fortunately, though, often strong judges are the ones who are widely well-liked and treat people well, and that is one of the ingredients of their success, while the SOB judges don't have a lot of support.
But, remember, it is often the opposite. the SOB is sometimes really politically strong and powerful.