Voters should ignore Michael Bloomberg’s record related to his “stop and frisk” policy because the former New York City mayor is an accidental bigot who has atoned for his racist policies, a New York Times editorial penned by a former judge suggested this week.

The op-ed stressed that voters must prioritize defeating “committed racist” President Donald Trump in the upcoming election, even if it means overlooking the racist policies Bloomberg implemented as mayor.

Former U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin, a President Bill Clinton appointee who in 2013 ruled that the “stop and frisk” policing tactic was a form of “racial profiling” of young black and Latino men, penned the editorial for the Times.

Scheindlin opined that Bloomberg’s policies are racist, but not the man himself.

She proclaimed:

If [Bloomberg] is the best person to head the Democratic ticket this fall, then his failed stop-and-frisk policy should not prevent him from assuming that most important role. After all, defeating a committed racist — one who called for the death penalty of the Central Park Five and who called the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., “very fine people” — should be everyone’s priority.

While Democrats have repeatedly claimed that the U.S. president called neo-Nazis demonstrating in Charlottesville, Virginia, “very fine people,” Breitbart News has stressed that Trump condemned the group.

Although she stands by her 2013 ruling on “stop and frisk,” Scheindlin stressed Bloomberg’s racist policies were offset by things he did to help the black and Latino communities.

Referring to Bloomberg, she wrote:

Many people are wondering — is he a racist? I don’t think so. Not if you look at many other valuable things he has done for minorities. I don’t believe he ever understood the human toll of the stops of black and Latino men, 90 percent of which did not result in a summons or arrest. But the stops were frightening, humiliating and unwarranted invasions of black and brown people’s bodies.

New York magazine blasted the former judge’s editorial for arguing that the racist tendencies of “stop and frisk” were an unintended effect of a well-intentioned policy.

In response to the editorial published by the Times, the magazine declared:

[Is not] for the retired white judge to say if Bloomberg’s racist policies are offset by the things he’s done to help black communities, or whether that makes him an unambiguously preferable alternative to Trump,” the magazine argued in its own op/ed. What’s clear is that claiming an official isn’t personally racist, despite what their remarks and policies convey, is most often a crutch.

Echoing the New York Times op/ed, a USA Today editorial, published on Thursday, urged Blacks and Latinos to overlook Bloomberg’s record related to his “stop and frisk” policy, described by the newspaper as a “mistake.”

“Single-issue voting is shortsighted and overlooks that Bloomberg and other politicians may make amends through policies that help those they hurt,” the USA Today op/ed argued.

USA Today also claimed Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” was well-intentioned, adding:

He thought stop and frisk would help prevent crime. He admitted making a mistake and apologized. People who are still upset by this are free to vote against him because of this one single issue, but then they’d also be voting against a guy who has fought on their behalf on so many other issues. They’d be tossing the baby out with the bath water.

Bloomberg is rising in the polls. The mainstream media constantly accuse Trump of racism despite record low unemployment and other economic benefits for minorities during his tenure.