It should have been a two minute minor if anything. It was a blown call. Gallant should have used a timeout after the second goal when the momentum was really starting to shift.

I certainly understand the rationale behind eliminating judicial elections, and converting purely to an appointment system.

But this is something that would have to pass both the Assembly and the Senate, and then proceed to ballot, and be approved by a majority of voters in two consecutive elections, in order for our constitution to be amended.

That takes quite some doing. But twice within the last 30 years, the matter actually did survive both the Assembly and Senate, and made it to the ballot.
But both times the measure lost by double digits.

So, what's the point about again pursuing it? There is no real appetite for it among the public, so it is pointless to again pursue unless there is an expensive, aggressive P.R. campaign to attempt to educate the public about why judges should only be appointed, but not elected. There was such a campaign for the creation of the Appellate Court, which was successful(I won't get into whether the promises made during that campaign were all kept, such as the court having no real fiscal impact,beyond a few salaries, as the appellate judges would simply double up without he NSC and use their courtrooms and chambers, etc.).

But that campaign largely succeeded because it was based on asking the voters to approve something, which was in fact sold to them as being in their best interests. But trying to convince voters that they should voluntarily lose their right to vote for judges, is an extremely hard sell as it is based on convincing people to voluntarily deprive themselves of a right they currently have. And, further, it is based on a theme that the voters are too ignorant about the system to make an informed choice, and that the selection of judges should therefore be made by (what the public perceives as) some clandestine cadre of select power brokers.

People wish to retain the right to vote for judges, even though, admittedly, most voters probably know little or nothing about the judges or their performance.

But what's the big fixation on judicial elections? After all, the public knows little or nothing about many of the positons on the ballot, beyond, perhaps, party affiliation.

The public has no notion what a Public Administrator does, or a County Assessor, or a myriad of other positons that, in many respects, impacts more people's lives than what an individual judge does. Yet no one is clamoring that those offices convert to appointed positons

And I understand the judiciary needs to be viewed differently, and independently, from the other two branches, and therefore election of judges seems unseemly, creates aa potential taint and all that. But that theme is never referenced by the movement to appoint judges. Instead, they purely focus on the fact the public knows nothing about the actual performance and functions of judges, and therefore should not vote on them. Well, the public also knows nothing about the functions and performance of many public official positons on the ballot, yet no one is suggesting that they be deprived of the right to vote for those offices.

No one has the right to usurp my right to vote. Proud daughter of a Vietnam veteran. He served to protect my right to vote. No on appointing judges. Stop the bullshit.

Don't you recall Aaron Ford saying he would not contract with Eglet Prince to handle cases, after successfully helping to eliminate the cap on fees to outside firms?
Now, he is giving EP the opioid litigation. He was a partner at EP and may well still have financial ties to the firm which paid off his tax liens. This situation really smells. . . .