To comment on a few items stated: Judge Markey does have an appellate record, for sure, as you note.  And that makes it easy for people to research her record and draw conclusions accordingly.  And I have done that; I have actually read a host of cases where Judge Markey authored an opinion (be it a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion as a COA judge).  Those cases number a bit more than 100 since she has been on the Court, and looking at these is a bit more manageable than trying to review thousands of cases in which she was on the panel issuing the decision.  I think these cases are especially important because when a judge on the COA takes the time to author a separate opinion under her name particularly (as opposed to the normal descriptor of "Per Curiam") it indicates often that the judge has a strong position that renders this case exceptional in the judge's mind such that she feels the need to individually speak.  I have read a great deal of these decisions and found some of them disturbing (from a textual standpoint, regardless of whether I agree with the ultimate result) and found others very well reasoned (again, from a textual standpoint).  

In my mind, this is what Judge Markey should be running on--not, as one of her recent ads stated, the reason to vote for her is two words: "emergency manager."  Because frankly I don't care if she agrees with the emergency manager law or not; the question is only whether the Court was legally correct to certify the referendum to the ballot.  To the extent she is implying that she would be an outcome-based vote on the EFM law, that is improper and distracts from other positive parts of her record.