To the Editor:

When Christine Napierski dropped by while campaigning a couple of weeks ago, I listened to her story of being recently selected as the “most qualified,” for the position of town justice, and her situation of now having to win the Democratic caucus for the party nomination for town justice.

In the 10 minutes we spent, Christine’s was a pretty narrowly-focused story, where she asserted that she was selected as the “most qualified” while implying that the caucus process was somehow unfair, that she is being wronged, and that greater party forces were at work to unseat her from the Democratic nomination.

We didn’t discuss judicial approach nor other experience. Still, I was pretty sympathetic and thought about coming out to the upcoming caucus to support her candidacy for the party nomination.

However, Bryan Clenahan is clearly the more broadly qualified candidate. After researching and speaking with both candidates, Bryan Clenahan stands out as having far greater and broader experience, having clear and demonstrated progressive values, and I’ll be supporting Bryan Clenahan as that candidate.

In contrast, Justice Napierski’s experience seems focused on her being a long-time experienced trial attorney.

I want my chance to vote for the candidate that has the stronger Democratic credentials, the candidate with the broader experience in public service and as well as broader experience as an attorney in both the private and public sectors.

I want the candidate that has a record as a legislator in helping people, crime victim and women’s issues activism, advocating and actively working for and achieving progress in health and consumer safety, and environmental issues in the best interest of the people over corporations and monied interests.

I want the candidate that is not endorsed by the Conservative Party. To me, that is what the party caucus is all about, and while Christine asserts that this process is unfair, it is our democratic process and it is the right of any registered Democrat to participate in this vote rather than have the town board select the town justice.

If Justice Napierski loses the nomination at the Democratic caucus on July 26, it will not be because she is the victim of “Democratic Machine Politics.” It will be because she does not have the preference of Democrats who want a real Democratic candidate.

And, if Ms. Napierski wins, her efforts are surely helped because of her obvious massive funding advantage and effective “ground game,” the likes of which I’ve not seen for a town justice election in my 23 years of living in Guilderland. Perhaps many others are also tired of the “victim” mentality pervasive in our current national leadership and judiciary.

Now, in a very new development, I understand that Christine Napierski is suing to stop the caucus process as “unfair,” and also not compliant with regulations set by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

While the caucus system is outdated, and the facilities do leave a lot to be desired, this is the democratic process we have in the town, and I for one do not want the courts deciding whether I can cast my vote in this week’s caucus. (On a smaller scale, this stinks with memories of the United States Supreme Court deciding Bush v. Gore.)

If Christine Napierski wants to work to change the caucus system to a more accessible primary system in the future, I’d fully support those efforts. However, this is the system we have today, and I want my opportunity to vote.

I do not want the town board selecting our town justice. And, I resent that Ms. Napierski has filed suit to stop the only democratic process we have. Let’s let the registered voters vote.

Paul Betancourt

Guilderland

Editor’s note: See related page-one story.