tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post3882604395531843808..comments2024-03-26T13:05:52.830-05:00Comments on For What It's Worth: Sun-Times refusal to make any endorsements will hurt good judicial candidatesJack Leyhanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-61940183381301329012012-01-24T12:30:45.910-06:002012-01-24T12:30:45.910-06:00The Sun-Times has done this before. Between 1996 ...The Sun-Times has done this before. Between 1996 and 2004 it did not endorse judicial candidates, instead providing those giant bar-association ratings grids. The result was a significant decline in information-based voting in the judicial contests. Readers simply do not sort through complicated lists of ratings; they rely on their newspaper to do that for them and provide a simple, clear, easy-to-follow recommendation. Their claim about research showing no impact is baloney. You're correct in saying that this change will hurt qualified candidates who need the editorial support.Albertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-13824232052919333012012-01-24T10:32:26.405-06:002012-01-24T10:32:26.405-06:00I have a big beef to pick with the Sun Times and T...I have a big beef to pick with the Sun Times and Tribune making judicial endorsements based solely on bar association ratings. This is what they did in subcircuit races. This where they have huge influence in judicial elections and choose to take a short cut. <br /><br />Neither paper should be making endorsements where a member of the paper's staff does not at least talk to each candidate in response to a questionnaire that has been filled out.<br /><br />I firmly believe that the Sun-Times endorsed in the 2010 judicial races so they could justify their attack on Pamela Hill VealMattnoreply@blogger.com