Reaction to Judge Baratta's Decision

When he stood for retention in 2007, I penned a blog called "Three Reasons to Boot Judge Baratta." I also criticized his reliance on local lawyers for campaign dough, as well as his use of now political consultant Tom Severson. These are just two of several posts I've written over the years that are critical of Steve Baratta.

I know this bothers him because people who know him tell me it bothers him. I also know that, in open court, he once complained about my general criticism of the nonexistent judicial work ethic.

But when I heard that Judge Baratta was assigned to the Gracedale ballot challenge, I filed no motion for recusal.

I thought he could be fair.

Now that he's ruled against me, has my opinion changed? No.

I can tell you that I think his decision is seriously flawed, because I do. He invalidates over 2700 signatures above and beyond what had been invalidated by the Voting Registrar, and incredibly refuses to go by her numbers. He forgets that she did testify that the signatures I was complaining about were not among those she had already stricken on her own. He accepted the testimony of two witnesses who filed 38 false affidavits. He even accepted the testimony of a woman who claimed she circulated as many as 15 petitions simultaneously, as though she has eyes in the back of her head. Basically, I think he was so caught up with a liberal construction of the Election Code - and he is supposed to construe the Election Code that way - that he abdicated his equally important responsibility to preserve the integrity of the election process.

So I completely disagree with him.

But I must also tell you that Judge Baratta's decision was fair. He was very even-handed during the hearing. His opinion is lucid and mostly well-reasoned. He also handled the challenge very expeditiously.

If it's necessary, we will appeal. But I also believe Judge Baratta called this as he saw it, and handled a difficult political case with integrity.

You can't ask for more than that.