One candidate is outraising her opponent by a staggering 5-to-1 margin, powered by a coalition that tells you a lot about where San Francisco's political winds are blowing: tech executives and police unions.

Let that combination sink in for a moment. Silicon Valley money and law enforcement backing the same candidate in San Francisco? A few years ago, that alliance would've been unthinkable. Now it's a fundraising juggernaut.

This isn't necessarily a scandal — people are allowed to donate to candidates they believe in, and there's nothing inherently wrong with broad coalitions. But it does raise a question every voter should be asking: what does this particular donor mix expect in return?

Tech executives tend to care about property crime, quality of life, and a legal system that doesn't treat shoplifting like a philosophical debate. Police unions want judges who won't toss cases on technicalities or hand down sentences that make officers wonder why they bothered with the arrest. These are, frankly, reasonable concerns that most San Franciscans share.

But a 5-to-1 fundraising advantage in a judicial race is enormous. Judges aren't supposed to be politicians — they're supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law. When one candidate has a war chest that dwarfs her opponent's, it doesn't just buy ads. It buys name recognition, and in low-information races like judicial elections, name recognition is basically the whole ballgame.

We're not telling you how to vote. We are telling you to pay attention. Judicial elections have an outsized impact on public safety, criminal justice, and civil liberties — the things that actually affect your daily life. The least you can do is Google both candidates before you fill in that bubble.

Democracy isn't just the races at the top of the ticket. Sometimes the most important fights are the ones nobody's watching.