Important Notice: Connie Reguli vs. Sharon Guffee – Juvenile Court Judge
Based upon our extensive research on the Williamson County Juvenile Court Judge race, candidate Connie Reguli earned a high 5-star rating and incumbent Sharon Guffee a low 3-star rating.
We looked at where the two candidates stand on key issues, who they have donated to, who’s donated to them, who they endorsed and who’s endorsed them, their social media, and much more.
Our endorsement goes to Connie Reguli: In fact, she earned a rare 5-star rating – our highest rating.
We are very troubled by Judge Guffey. She seems to be a Republican in name only – one who contributes to democrats and who does not take principled stands. She has not proven herself to be a strict constructionist. She is more of a “Judicial Activist” legislating from the bench.
It seems she is more interested in going along with the system and not acting on principle.
However, Connie Reguli was just found guilty of a very convoluted and curious legal matter – a few weeks before the election.
The election and conviction is very complex because Reguli has been at odds with a sitting judge. Guffee has even made a ruling against the daughter of Reguli.
It’s very personal.
And you have an establishment judge who is in trouble of winning reelection. On the surface, this conviction could potentially be a “dirty trick” by a fellow judge protecting one of their own. It’s not uncommon. Intentional, unfair harm is done to a candidate to harm – destroy – a threat to a fellow judge a few weeks before an election. This sounds like a “dirty trick.”
Reguli is appealing the conviction, but it won’t be heard until after the election.
The moral dilemma is because she was found guilty of harboring a missing child – who she says she was protecting – disqualifies her from being a judge.
On the surface, we should support Guffee because of the conviction. Alternatively, we could wait and see what the court appeal outcome is.
What is the right thing to do?
We have decided to wait to see what the appeal shows and let the legal due process take place.
Voting for Reguli is voting for a person who would be the best judge.
But who wants to vote for – and we don’t want to endorse a candidate – that has ethical issues?
In wrestling with this dilemma, we are sticking with our recommendation for Reguli, but it is not an easy and clear call.
Those who are concerned about the conviction should vote for Guffee.
Those who want to wait on the appeal outcome should vote for Reguli – the better candidate.