◼ Gallegos for District Attorney
We agree with the assessment of David Sklansky, faculty chair of the University of California Berkeley's Boalt School of Law's Center for Criminal Justice, that voters should think about what types of cases they want to see prioritized and how they want their district attorney to work with law enforcement agencies, and look for a candidate with a philosophy that aligns with theirs.
Current District Attorney Paul Gallegos has certainly shown lapses in judgment. His opponent, Allison Jackson, has as well. Watching their campaigns this election season, it has been abundantly clear that both candidates have played a bit fast and loose with the facts. As David Levine, a professor at the University of California Hastings School of Law, said, one would hope candidates vying for the office would play slow and tight with the facts and make a conscious effort not to distort the truth.
Neither candidate did. Here we have a tie.
But those developments have not been enough for us change the position we took in the June primary.
As we said before, we hope that Gallegos has learned his lesson about some of the decisions he made in the past, and we believe he has grown out of pursuing cases that take away from his office's primary responsibility to handle criminal cases and has grown into the role of district attorney.
He's done some great work in bringing the office into the 21st century and assembling a crack investigative team which has solved several cold
cases, including the murder of Curtis Huntzinger, bringing closure to his family.
While we have concerns about Gallegos, we also have reservations about Jackson's ability to step into the job.
She has raised legitimate issues, and her platform of ensuring victims' rights has certainly resonated with voters.
As we support a yes vote for Gallegos, we hope he's listened to concerns raised in this campaign and does more than take them under submission.
