« Ind. Econ. Dev. - The South Shore Line, something that works, and could work even better | Main | Ind. Law - STAR posts ISTA lawsuit »

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Courts - Two Arkansas judges declaring stands on issues

"Two high court candidates declaring stands on issues: They say practice helps inform public; others worry it undermines judiciary’s impartiality." So reads the headline to this story from yesterday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (thanks to How Appealing for the link). Some quotes from a lengthy story:

Two candidates in next month's Arkansas Supreme Court elections are breaking with long-standing practice and running on something other than their titles and experience: They're taking stands.

Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Wendell Griffen and Maumelle District Judge Roger Harrod take stands on issues judges usually avoid. They argue the voters deserve to know more before electing judges. "Our democracy works by the people being informed about the folks they are to vote for," Griffen said. "As opposed to being uninformed."

Griffen's opponent, Logan County Circuit Judge Paul Danielson, and others say judges and judicial candidates shouldn't discuss issues that might come before them in a case. Opinionated judges undermine a court's claim to being impartial and unbiased, they say.

"I don't think anybody wants to elect judges who bring to the court a specific agenda," Danielson said. "And I don't think most people want these legal issues resolved at the ballot box. They want it resolved in the courtroom."

Harrod, running against Justice Donald Corbin, said he simply disagrees with the court's decision in June 2005 to reopen the landmark Lake View school funding case. He says the court was out of line and without authority.

"To me, that is playing havoc with our separation of powers," Harrod said. "Just taking jurisdiction where the Constitution does not give you that jurisdiction is a dangerous precedent, I believe."

Corbin, who supported reopening the case, said the court had "an inherent right" to make sure its order is enforced. He worries that judicial candidates who campaign against the unpopular decisions made by their opponents threaten the independence of the court. * * *

Corbin, a 15-year veteran of the court, was one of the strongest supporters of declaring the level of school funding to be unconstitutional on grounds that it was not adequate.

Running for the Supreme Court on a high profile case or with links to some hot issue is rare. But it isn't unheard of. Jim Johnson knocked off incumbent Minor Milwee in 1958 after gaining a reputation as a foe of desegregating public schools.

Milwee's campaign was limited by rules on judicial conduct. Johnson later said that "I didn�t play by the rules. I ran for that position based upon championing at that time a cause that was identifiable to the people."

In a letter to the editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Johnson recently wrote that "Faced with the same set of circumstances today, despite the carefully concocted, incumbent-protecting court rules, I have no hesitancy in saying I would do it again."

The elections come when the state is trying to determine the effect of an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last year that said rules limiting speech of judges were unconstitutional.

Arkansas' similar rules haven't been challenged and still are in effect.

But Harrod said the 8th Circuit's ruling "makes me a little more comfortable" in talking about his views.

The state Supreme Court also is the target of criticism from some political leaders for its decision to reopen the school funding case in June and for declaring the state's system of funding public schools unconstitutionally inadequate twice in the last four years.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 25, 2006 12:47 PM
Posted to Courts in general