I read that commentary or letter to the editor.

It seems to be written by someone who is shilling for two of the candidates(the two who happen to have filed the complaints), but the writer then climbs up on his soap box and assumes a positon of noble protector of all that is ethical, etc.

His puzzling(or should is say "baffling conclusion" considering he has practiced for 26 years), is that the electorate should reward the two candidates who made the complaints and vote for them, and punish and vote against the two candidates who are the subject oft he complaints.

And his entire basis for this conclusion is just that one simple fact–these two candidates have complained about their opponents, so these complaining candidates should be rewarded and elected.

At this point, it goes much further than the two candidates have not been found culpable of any judicial election ethical infractions. There has not even been a determination that any hearing will even be set, or that the matter will generate any opinion or sanction.

In fact, if this attorney were to argue something like "Yeah, but al least it has been approved for investigation," that is misleading at best as all such complaints must be initially reviewed to determine if any further action
is appropriate.

This logic would be akin to saying a lawyer should be found civilly liable for malpractice merely because some past client, on a pro per basis, filed a complaint against him, or that someone should be assumed guilty of a crime on account that an enemy of them filed a police report(even if such matter is never approved for prosecution by the police or the D.A.).

Obviously, burdens of proof are different for those three matters–judicial ethical complaint; civil suit; and criminal case.

But none of that nuance would matter to our esteemed attorney who seems to be utterly oblivious to all due process concerns, regardless of what type of matter is at issue.

Apparently, according to our attorney of 26 years illustrious experience, something must be true simply because someone said it is true(regardless of such person's personal connection to such matter, and what they stand to gain by it).

So, we should vote against these two candidates simply because their opponents claim they have taken some actions of questionable ethics?
Really!?

11:05 here again. I had to re-read that commentary as I remained really concerned, and wanted to make sure I did not misinterpret something. And this concern was heightened as I am aware of the very positive reputation that such attorney seems to enjoy(at least from what I have heard).

After re-reading it, it confirms to me that he does seem to be urging support for the two candidates who filed the complaints, although I cannot be certain of that, or that he in fact even knows them.

But what is far more important than anything else, IMO, is that after he offers this discussion concerning judicial ethics, the conclusion he appears to take. And it remains concerning to me.

Upon a re-read, in fairness I need to point out that he did not directly say that we should vote for the two complaining candidates, rather than the two candidates who are the subject of the complaints.

But, in my view, it amounts to essentially the same conclusion. The way he frames the inquiry is that the public, in the absence of anything else, will decide whether to vote for the two who made the complaints, or the two who were the subject of the complaints.

The way it is phrased is in terms of a very clear rhetorical inquiry which strongly suggests the answer: all a voter may wind up knowing for certain, by election day, is that the complaints were filed, and thus to decide whether to vote for the complaining attorneys or whether to vote for the two attorneys who are the subject of the complaint.

And when the writer waters it down to that being all we may know by election day(which is presumably correct as these ethical complaints take a relatively long time to resolve), when we consider that within the context and tone of everything he writes up to that point, he seems to place a strong negative inference against those who are the subject of the complaint.

Do I need to read it a third or fourth time? Have I totally missed the point of what he wrote? If not, I remain concerned about the conclusion. An orangutan can be trained to file a report or complaint. Much, much more is needed before I assume any conclusions based on such complaint.

And let us not forget the elephant in the room. The complaints are generated by candidates whose self-interests are directly on point. They apparently assume they are being politically harmed by these actions taken by their opponents–unless I am to assume they are taking these actions solely or primarily for the public good(which, personally, I am too cynical to assume).

I believe candidates believe that it will make their opponents look bad and unethical if they file ethical complaints against them.

But, as a practical matter such is seldom the case. After the one or two articles appear indicting the complaints have been filed, it all disappears and is of no import. The only thing of real potential import is if the person is in fact sanctioned for unethical behavior, as that would tend to generate a lot more news coverage.

Another action that political candidates assume helps them, but does not, is when they file a lawsuit against their opponent during the election cycle.

They assume it will help them in the eyes of the public and media. But it seldom does. And it often backfires as they assumed they can quietly agree to dismiss it after the election occurs. But that is often untrue, and the opposing party is often successful in an attorney fees request based on it being a frivolous lawsuit with no good faith merit.

Andrew Crander reelected as BOG, awesome!