Was there dirty pool played in the race for Chautauqua County Family Court Judge prior to the November election?

It sure seems that way.

The filing of criminal charges against Sally Jaroszynski in October for allegedly illegal nominating petitions doomed an already longshot campaign. Jaroszynski, who has run for the position in the past as a Democrat, changed her party affiliation to Republican before last year’s election. She didn’t receive the party’s endorsement and tried to run on the Working Families Party line – which meant she had little chance of beating her Republican-endorsed challenger.

Even though it was a longshot, the misdemeanor criminal charge largely ended Jaroszynski’s chances. Appearances were more important than fact. Charges against Jaroszynski were dropped this month after prosecutors in Erie County decided there wasn’t nearly enough evidence to continue with the case.

There are two things to consider in the wake of the charges against Jaroszynski being dropped. First, this is a case that should have been fast-tracked to be decided within days, not months. While the wheels of justice turned quickly here, they didn’t move quickly enough. Election-related cases should be moved to the front of the docket, in our opinion, as a matter of fairness and in the interest of allowing questions to be answered so that voters can have all the information they need to make decisions in the voting booth.

The bogus charges against Jaroszynski also make us question the election of judges in the first place. At this point we aren’t selecting judges based upon qualifications – which should be the most important thing when it comes to judgeships, especially local ones. It was frustrating to go years without a state Supreme Court Justice who lived in Chautauqua County because a local judge couldn’t get through Erie County’s political sausage making process. There has been controversy over back-room political dealings – or alleged petition fraud – in Chautauqua County’s Family Court judicial races.

It’s time, in our opinion, for judicial appointments. Make the process bipartisan and based on qualification. Interpreting the law is too important to leave to a popularity contest.