Opinion: Challenging sitting judges

Both of the incumbent Hillsborough County judges challenged in the Sept. 10 primary kept their seats. There was no reason Judge Cheryl Thomas should have lost her job. Judge Eric Myers made mistakes as a prosecutor, but his record on the bench warranted another term. Their victories are noteworthy because most voters usually know little about judicial candidates. The candidates are barred by ethics rules from speaking about much. Though the best candidates won, the outcome shouldn't discourage talented lawyers from challenging sitting judges.

Thomas' win was especially encouraging. She is professional, knows the law and exhibits a good demeanor on the bench. Her challenger, Anthony Arena, outworked her, but his signs and television ads did not make the difference. Arena should have challenged a judge who deserved competition; plenty were up for re-election this year. Thomas' victory may mean voters are paying more attention to the candidates' qualifications.

Myers, as a prosecutor, misapplied the law in the Aisenberg missing-baby case. But his challenger, Gary Dolgin, failed to convince voters that this mistake warranted Myers' removal from the county bench. Dolgin, however, did a service by running. He initially challenged Judge Robert Bonanno, but switched to Myers' race after Bonanno resigned in disgrace. Though he didn't win, Dolgin still broke the ice for other lawyers who have long been hesitant to challenge a sitting judge.

Only two of 26 incumbent judges up for election in Hillsborough were challenged this year. The local bar is too timid about taking on mediocre judges or those who are politically connected. Lawyers jump for an open seat, but the strengths they highlight in these safe races are attributes that also should be measured against those of sitting judges. The voters are capable of making good decisions in judicial contests; all they need is a choice.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright