The Times offers candidates not recommended by the editorial board an opportunity to reply to the newspaper's recommendations. Here is one response:
Pat Carroll, candidate supervisor of elections
Thank you for pointing out that I have substantial attributes and a willingness to tackle tough assignments. After almost two years of a political appointee, the voters will now choose their elections supervisor. I hope voters ask themselves "Which candidate's experience and training have best prepared him or her to perform the duties of the position?''
My education and experience are far more suited for this position than Brian Corley. Prior to beginning the practice of law, I managed people in critical positions. I also have significant budgetary and leadership experience as well as a strong working knowledge of the law.
Integrity and impartiality are also critical to this position. After hearing many complaints from poll workers, I pointed out during a debate that poll workers deserved better training. My opponent then went directly to poll workers and told them that they were being attacked. He misrepresented my statements for political gain.
Additionally, on the first day of early voting, Mr. Corley stated that there was an "overload" on calculating due to unexpectedly high turnout. What? Voters can't afford excuses.