Voters should consider judge despite oversight

I am writing in support of Palmer’s Judge Estelle, up for retention vote this election cycle. Over the years I have met several people who have worked professionally with my uncle. They have all raved about what a good and fair judge he is and how much they enjoyed working with him. However, there is an official recommendation against his retention based on a clerical error from a couple years ago. When Judge Estelle realized he had signed off on his pay affidavits with two cases still overdue, he self-reported the error. In his 11 years on the bench, Judge Estelle has handled over 66,000 cases; these two cases represented .00003 percent of the cases he’s handled. Judge Estelle provided “full and free disclosure” to the Judicial Conduct Commission and cooperated with their investigation. After a two-day hearing, the Judicial Conduct Commission found that Judge Estelle did not act intentionally and did not know the pay affidavits were inaccurate at the time he signed them. The Commission found that Judge Estelle had “excellent character,” was “precise and thorough in his work and has a good legal mind” and was “remorseful.” Judge Estelle at his own expense took a seminar in case flow management to ensure this never happened again. Judge Estelle made a mistake and accepted responsibility for it. Vote “yes” to retain Judge Estelle.