For Country Supervisor District 1: I am officially switching from Fulton Brock to Ed Hermes. Why? I have a good friend who actively campaigned for Ed Hermes. The Arizona Republic had nothing but good things to say about Ed, but they went with Fulton because of his experience and record. But my gut tells me that Hermes would work with more vigor to curb air polution, something that is a part of the Supervisor's job description.
And what has pushed me over the edge? Brock's despicable mailings that were misleading, irrelevant, and over the top attacks against Hermes. That Hermes was unqualified because he was once addicted to Halo? Really, that is a disqualifier? Not in my book. I'm in the Hermes camp, which just about pushes me into voting for practically a 100% Democratic ticket. Fulton Brock was one of my only Republicans.
Except I'm saved, because I am voting party line Republican for Corporation Commission:
When I initially endorsed the Democrats in a previous post, I received two pretty damning comments on these candidates. The Arizona Republic also endorsed the Republicans and made a convincing, clear cut case that the Republicans are clearly more qualified, better prepared, and more pragmatic choices for the position.
So, needless to say, I'm going with Barry Wong, Bob Stump, and Marian McClure.
Regarding the Tempe Union School Board, I'm voting based on descriptions here.
I'm going with: Donald Keuth, Michelle Helm, and Zita Johnson, the incumbents. They have been in the area longer then the challengers, and seem to have the right balance of experience between them. Johnson worked at ASU in the child study library for 25 years which is intriguing. Keuth used to work at an architectural firm that designed buildings and schools which would be helpful knowledge, and Helm worked for many years in Tempe elementary schools.
The challengers both seemed intriguing in their own ways, but both are new to the area, with shallow experience actually working in the schools, so I'm going with the incumbents.
Helena prompted me to look again at the judges rankings and another friend convinced me of a pretty compelling strategy on how to vote for the judges.
Vote yes for all judges who received really high ratings, vote no for any that received really poor scores, skip the rest.
17 Commissiones voted "Does Not Meet Qualifications. Received a 60% on Judicial Temperament from a survey of Lawyers.
"called an "idiot savant" by some lawyers, and a "total prick" by others. Wants everything his way, sticks it to the defense as much as possible, gives prosecutors the run of the court; never admits that he has made a mistake; totally unfit."
AZ Judges Review, however, gave him a 9 and claims the Commissioners know nothing about the judges... What can I say?
Net Roots: Pro-prosecution, biased against Hispanics, heavy handed sentencing of minorities.
AZ Judges Review: 7
3 of 26 Commissioners voted does not meet, 73% Judicial Temperament among lawyers.
Helene Abrams - 29 Commissioners voted "Meets", Received 98-100% from the lawyers and jurors, More than 80% from the litigants and witnesses.
Net Roots: "Was head of the Maricopa County Public Defenders Juvenile Unit, took a lot of heat when she suppressed a confession in a child molest case, Andrew Thomas was livid (my, oh, my!); not afraid to put the law above possible adverse publicity; generally an outstanding judge. "
Netroots: Former county attorney who couldn't get along with Andrew Thomas; progressive, fair, a straight shooter; keeps the prosecutors on a short leash.
AZ Judges Review: Rating 9
29 Commissioners Voted Meets
Ok, this strategy of looking at Netroors, AZ Judges Review, and the Commissioners recommendations just isn't working. By the way, the Commissioners only recommended a No vote on one judge, and that judge received a resounding endorsement from AZ Judges Review.
I just don't think I know enough to vote, and unlike Helena, I'm just not ready to vote every single judge out at this point...
There you have it.