The Letter to the Judicial Candidates

I saw the comment on my post earlier and, honestly, I didn't think anyone would be interested in the letter. So, for those who are interested, here it is. These are the final questions. No, we won't be making any changes. I ran these by the editorial board a while back. The goal is to keep it simple and get some basic information. The questions are based on your comments. Many of the comments seem to say, why is this person running or I am more qualified than X. So that's what I'm going for. And I wanted to ask a fun question. This isn't the RJ. And apparently, when I drafted this late last night, I wanted to include some run-on sentences in the bullets. Here is the letter:

Dear Judicial Candidates,

I am a writer for Wild Wild Law, Clark County's local legal blog. Because we do not accept advertisements, many people are not aware of how large our audience is. On any given day, we range from hundreds to thousands of page views, depending on what's happening in the legal world. As judicial candidates, exposure on the site allows you to reach a targeted group of viewers who are specifically interested in the legal arena in Clark County.

One of the topics that generates the most interest is the Clark County judiciary. During the last election cycle, we referred our readers to other sites, like the Review Journal, to obtain specifics about the judges. Based on the comments we've seen, I'd like to offer all of the judicial candidates a chance to answer a brief interview. If you decline to answer or if we receive no response, we will simply state that we have not received a response when your department is posted. If you do answer, we will post your answers on the site in the following manner:

• I request that you answer by February 21 to be included in the first round of answers. If you answer later than that, it is fine, I will still post your responses, it may not be with your original opponents.
  
• I will post races that will be facing a primary election prior to those races with just two candidates
• I have sent emails only to those candidates who have listed emails on their Candidate Filing forms with the Election Department. If there is a candidate who did not receive this email who would like to participate, please email me at ewoodsesq [at] gmail [dot] com.
• If you would like to send a photo to post with your response, attach it to your response. You may also provide a link to your campaign site.
  
• There will be no editorial content added to my posts with your answers. The candidate responses for each department will be listed in alphabetical order.
  
• I will not spell check or grammar check. I recommend doing that. The comments will be open and our readers are a persnickety bunch.
  
• I repeat - the comments will be open. If you choose, the day your interview is posted, you are welcome to post responses to any reader questions or comments. I will do my best to advise everyone at least 24 hours in advance prior to the posting of their Department's responses.
  

Questions for non-judges:

1. Why do you want to be a judge?

2. Why are you qualified to be a judge?

3. Do you read Wild Wild Law? If so, what do you think of the site?

Questions for incumbents:
1. Why should people re-elect you?
2. What you have achieved while in office?
3. Do you read Wild Wild Law? If so, what do you think of the site?

Thank you for your time. Good luck with your campaigns. I look forward to hearing from you.

Elle