Two years ago, a bagel shop owner who hadn’t practiced law in more than a decade was voted onto the Los Angeles Superior Court bench over an incumbent judge with two decades’ experience.

This year’s judicial elections could be equally surprising, with a ballot of nearly a dozen races featuring at least one controversial candidate, along with all four in another race deemed “not qualified” by the county bar association reports the Daily News.

And what’s particularly worrisome to legal experts is that the relatively low-profile races mean voters Tuesday could be mostly clueless about candidates’ qualifications for a public office that wields power over life, death, freedom and money.

“It’s more than dangerous – it’s scary,” said Michael T. Elliott, chief marketing officer for the Los Angeles County Bar Association, who argues that judicial races are much more important than most local elections.

“What’s the glue, what’s the fabric that holds a county, a state, a country together, but the rule of law and how it’s applied.”

Judicial elections don’t draw the attention they deserve because they’re simply less flashy, said the University of Southern California’s Kareem Crayton, an assistant professor of law and politics.

Unlike other elected officials, judges – who make $178,789 annually and serve six-year terms – aren’t supposed to take hard stances, be beholden to a political party or certain constituents or pursue personal agendas.

Read it here: Do you really know the candidates on the judicial ballot?