JP Election Brief: Candidate attacks

The JP Election Brief
Pulling back the curtain on the drama of judicial elections
In this issue...
Election news from: Tennessee, Idaho, California,  Indiana, Arkansas, Texas and  Florida

May 15, 2014

by: State Courts Staff

Campaign controversies are bubbling up all over the country as judicial candidates seek to gain an advantage with voters. With the Arkansas primary less than a week away, one candidate started to criticize his incumbent opponent's work on a sobriety court. Tennessee's lieutenant governor wants voters in the state to know they can vote to keep or kick out the supreme court justices facing a retention vote in August. However, his openly partisan approach has upset some who now fear a costly election. A candidate in California is crying foul after her campaign billboards, which criticized her opponent, were taken down. Candidates in Idaho have one last weekend to make an impression on voters, as campaigns in Florida are just getting underway Also, we look at how incumbents fared in the recent Indiana primary races

Important dates: General elections: 5/20:Georgia Primary elections: 5/20:Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Oregon Primary runoff election: 5/27:Texas Filing deadlines: 5/16: Washington 5/28: Arizona

Lieutenant governor takes aim at Democratic supreme court justices

Tennessee:

Lieutenant governor Ron Ramsey wants voters in the state to know they'll be able to vote on whether to retain three sitting supreme court justices in August. His informational activities, however, have drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle due to alleged partisan bias.

In a recent sit-down with reporters, Ramsey fielded questions about actions he's taken to inform the public about the upcoming retention vote and his views on the subject. Ramsey has been circulating a document criticizing justices Cornelia Clark, Gary R. Wade and Sharon Lee. The three were appointed by Democratic governor Phil Bredesen. The document provides lines of attack to use against the justices, suggesting they are "soft on crime" and anti-business. Ramsey has been meeting with various groups—including business leaders and victims’ rights groups—and is a member of the Republican State Leadership Committee, a powerful national conservative group that is spending money on judicial races across the country.

The document also questions specific decisions the justices have made during their tenure, though the justices themselves are prohibited from discussing those decisions publicly. During the meeting with reporters, Ramsey stood by his decision to promote his side of the story, arguing that it was up to the justices' supporters to provide the other point of view.

Tennessee’s judicial retention elections will be held August 7. Justices must face the yes/no retention vote every eight years. If a justice receives a majority of "yes" votes, they remain on the court to serve another term. A majority of "no" votes removes a justice from the court, and the governor must then appoint a replacement.

Some of Ramsey's detractors are prominent Republicans, including former court of appeals judge Lew Conner. Conner claims Ramsey purposefully chose to highlight a few decisions that would cast the justices in a negative light. "What he’s doing, I think, is just terrible...It’s an attack on the independence of the judicial system," Conner said.

William "Mickey" Barker, a Republican and former chief justice of the state supreme court, echoed Conner’s concerns, describing Ramsey’s activities as "an attack on the entire judicial system." He argued:

“	We have three branches of government. Two of those branches are political branches—the legislative and the executive. And the judicial branch is non-political...[I’m] very disappointed that our present legislative branch is apparently seeking to dominate all three...It would be a real shame to see that occur.	”
—William "Mickey" Barker

Ramsey has rebuffed criticism that he is improperly politicizing the retention process. In an interview with the Nashville Scene, he said that giving people power over retention elections simply "legitimizes" the retention process. He also explained that the method by which the state selects its judges was initially set up by Democrats as a way to get their judges on the bench. Thus, he said that the system is inherently a partisan process--even without partisan elections. He explained that he's talking about the supreme court retention elections to advise voters about the opportunity to choose whether the court's current justices will be allowed to remain on the bench. He also admitted he would like all the justices serving on the state supreme court "...to be Republicans, I'll be right up front about that."

Idaho judicial primary battles to watch

Idaho:

The upcoming primary election on May 20 will likely bring an end to most of the state's contested judicial races. Candidates who receive over 50% of the nonpartisan primary votes will be declared the automatic winners, without having to run in the general election.

The key race to watch is the state supreme court contest between incumbent Joel Horton and challenger William Seiniger. Horton, who was appointed in 2007 and elected in 2008, is seeking his second full term on the court. Seiniger certainly faces an uphill battle to unseat the well-funded incumbent. Horton has reported over $69,000 in campaign contributions so far, while veteran attorney Seiniger reported no contributions as of the last reporting date.

The primary also includes several contested trial court races. The most competitive contests include no incumbent candidate. There is one such race in the 4th District and another in the 7th District. The candidates for those races are:

4th District - Wetherell seat

• Samuel A. Hoagland
• Rebecca W. Arnold
• Jonathan Medema
• Jeanne M. Howe

7th District - Shindurling seat

• Steven H. Thompson
• Bruce L. Pickett
• Scott J. Davis

A number of district court judges are facing challengers in their bids for re-election, including:

• 2nd District: Jeff Brudie (incumbent) vs. John H. Bradbury
• 4th District: Richard Greenwood (incumbent) vs. Les Bock
• 6th District: Robert C. Naftz (incumbent) vs. Lynn Brower
• 7th District:

• Darren B. Simpson (incumbent) vs. Andre Linchenko Lawson
• Joel E. Tingey (incumbent) vs. Randy Neal

With so much riding on these primaries, Idaho citizens should be sure to exercise their right to vote on May 20! For a full list of judicial candidates, see: Idaho judicial elections, 2014.

California candidate not pleased with removal of her billboards

California:

Every Thursday, Judgepedia's State Courts Staff highlights interesting events in the world of judicial elections across the nation. Make sure to use Judgepedia's Election Central the rest of the week as a hub for all your judicial election needs.

Carla Keehn is running against incumbent Lisa Schall for election to the San Diego County Superior Court. The federal prosecutor paid $14,000 to place ads on billboards owned by Clear Channel for 30 days, in advance of the election. According to an article on the website for public broadcasting station KPBS, the billboards said:

“	Vote for Carla Keehn...The only candidate for this office not convicted of a crime. Because no one is above the law, not even judges.	”
—Carla Keehn campaign

The language in Keehn's ad references Schall's October 2007 DUI charge. Schall later entered a plea to a lesser charge of reckless driving. The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished Schall following her plea. The commission previously issued private admonishments of Schall for her behavior on the bench in 1995 and 1999. Despite these past issues, for the 2014 judicial elections, the San Diego County Bar Association rated Schall as "well-qualified." Keehn was rated as "qualified."

An article in the San Diego Free Press, indicated Keehn’s campaign reserved the billboards five months ago. An April 21 e-mail from an account executive at Clear Channel, suggested changes for the billboard ad to emphasize the fact that Keehn was "the only candidate not convicted of a crime." The ads were displayed on billboards beginning on May 7, but by May 9 they had been removed.

On the morning of May 9, Keehn’s campaign reported receiving an e-mail from Clear Channel with photos which commented positively on the billboards. However, later in the day the company e-mailed the campaign again, indicating "we have a problem." The company initially said the billboards would remain up through the weekend, but then said they would be taken down "ASAP." In an e-mail response to the Free Press the following week, Clear Channel indicated Keehn’s ads were taken down because they did not follow the company’s protocol for political ads.

Keehn says she feels the removal of the billboards was a violation of her right to free speech. However, she says she’ll continue to "challenge Schall to stand up for what’s right."

Schall did not offer a comment on the matter.

Indiana primary election analysis

Indiana:

The state’s primary election took place May 6. Now that the votes have been counted, we can look at the judicial primary races with a larger lens.

There were a total of 119 seats up for election, including 80 superior court seats and 39 circuit court seats. The table below includes stats about incumbent participation in the superior and circuit court primaries. (Races for seats on the Marion County Superior Court and the small claims courts are not included.)

Election trends for the superior and the circuit courts were very similar. In contests for seats on courts at both levels, unopposed incumbents ran in more than half those races. A total of 4 incumbents were defeated in the primary. These occurred in races for seats on the LaGrange County Superior Court, Tippecanoe County Superior Court and the Clark County Circuit Court.

Incumbent participation and outcomes in the primary:

	Unopposed incumbents	Incumbent with an opponent in the general	Incumbent won	Incumbent lost	Race with no incumbent
Total seats (119)	58% (69)	5.9% (7)	3.4% (4)	3.4 % (4)	29.4% (35)
Superior court seats (80)	58.75% (47)	6.25% (5)	3.75% (3)	2.5% (2)	28.75 (23)
Circuit court seats (39)	56.4% (22)	5.1% (2)	2.6% (1)	5.1% (2)	30.8% (12)

Regarding the gender of the candidates who ran for election to the superior and circuit courts, approximately 78% were male and 22% were female. Of the male candidates, 75% won their races, while 25% lost. Among the female candidates competing for seats in the primary, 88% were successful in their races, while 12% were defeated.

Races for the Marion County Superior Court are not included in the table above because the county's system for choosing candidates is different from a regular primary contest. Candidates ran for a total of 16 open seats on the superior court, with 8 seats being allocated for Democratic candidates and 8 seats for Republican candidates. 8 Republican candidates ran in the primary, so each was able to secure a seat. 7 of the 8 candidates were incumbents. In the Democratic races, a total of 11 candidates ran for 8 open seats. Three candidates were defeated. Four candidates were incumbents, and all were able to win the primary vote.

Circuit court challenger criticizes incumbent's administration of sobriety court

Arkansas:

A candidate for the Twentieth Circuit in Arkansas is criticizing incumbent Amy Brazil’s handling of repeat DWI offenders. Brazil created a sobriety court in 2011 while serving on the Faulkner County District Court, in order to provide an alternate means for sentencing repeat offenders, but challenger Mike Murphy (New Mexico) claims the court was a sham. The court kept offenders out of jail, Murphy says, but failed to accomplish the court's stated goals- to provide violators with alcohol treatment services and close supervision.

The sobriety court was based in Conway, where Murphy is the city attorney, and his office prosecutes most DWI cases in the district court. Murphy released a statement claiming that he asked Brazil to allow the city attorney’s office to be involved with the sobriety court, but that she declined.

Brazil championed the sobriety court while campaigning for election in 2012. She lost the election, but Governor Mike Beebe subsequently appointed Brazil to the Twentieth Circuit, also based in Faulkner County.

“	I feel confident that if I had been elected in 2012 the program would be fully implemented by now and working to help individuals obtain sobriety, which would benefit not only them, but our entire community.	”
—Amy Brazil

According to Murphy, a judge may order a defendant to perform community service instead of sentencing them to mandatory time in jail for a DWI offense. However, under state law, judges must provide a written order explaining their reasons for doing so. He noted the case files for participants in the sobriety court did not include this written documentation.

The Log Cabin Democrat mentions several irregularities associated with Brazil’s handling of the sobriety court. In court documents, she appears to have illegally reduced some charges from a DWI to DUI. Many offenders, according to the newspaper, did not serve mandatory minimum sentences. Deputy County Court Clerk Cindy Nutter, who was on the sobriety court team, said that Brazil made decisions unilaterally that should have been decided among the team—namely, which offenders qualified for sobriety court. Nutter gave one example that some offenders participated in the sobriety court before they were convicted, which went against her training. (Information regarding Brazil in a Women’s Inc. Voter’s Guide, from 2012, confirmed Nutter's statement. The guide noted, "Judge Brazil has modified treatment of DWI defendants by continuing to monitor their progress after their conviction.")

A public defender who served on the sobriety court team, Dustin Chapman, noted the sobriety court program was taking shape under Brazil. According to Chapman, those working with the sobriety court received training and a model existed for how the court would work. Some processes were also implemented. He told the Log Cabin Democrat,

“	We had breath monitors in their houses and required 12-step programs— it was innovative stuff that had not been done before. [Sobriety Court] never came to the goal we were working toward, but it wasn’t a fiction either.	”
—Dustin Chapman

Chief justice candidates try to narrow gap before general election

Texas: With the primaries behind them, judicial candidates in the state are looking ahead to the general election this fall. One of the high-profile races this year is the contest for the state supreme court chief justice seat, a race that appears on the ballot every six years, unless the sitting justice leaves midterm.

While many states select a chief justice to serve on their supreme court by peer vote or seniority, the selection of Texas' chief justice lies in the hands of everyday voters. This practice allows candidates like William Moody, a Democratic district judge in El Paso County, and Tom Oxford, a Texas attorney running as a Libertarian, to vie for the position alongside Nathan Hecht, the Republican who currently occupies the seat.

Chief Justice
Candidate:	Votes:
Nathan Hecht	5945
William Moody	2681
Tom Oxford	1013
Robert Talton (Defeated)	1164
Above are the results of a 2014 judicial poll, conducted by the State Bar of Texas, which asked attorneys to cast a vote in favor of their preferred candidate in each appellate race.

The favorite of Texas attorneys, Nathan Hecht is the longest-serving appellate court judge in the state's history. After serving as a judge for the 95th District Court and the Fifth District Court of Appeals, he was elected to the supreme court in 1988 and has been re-elected four times. When former chief justice Wallace Jefferson resigned last fall, governor Rick Perry appointed Hecht to take his place.

Hecht defeated fellow Republican Robert Talton in the March 4 primary. He has received the endorsement of the governor and is also endorsed by the state's two U.S. Senators, Jefferson (his predecessor), the Young Conservatives of Texas and other conservative organizations. He earned a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Yale and earned his J.D. from Southern Methodist University.

William Moody has been a judge of the 34th District Court since 1986. Prior to that, he spent over a decade as an assistant district attorney in El Paso.

Moody ran for Place 2 of the Texas Supreme Court in 2006. This time around, he has received endorsements from the Austin Black Lawyers Association, Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio, Dallas County Young Democrats, North by Northwest Democrats and other Democratic organizations. Moody graduated with a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Texas at El Paso in 1972 and went on to earn his J.D. from Texas Tech University Law School in 1975.

California-born Tom Oxford, a managing attorney at Waldman Smallwood, PC, says he began practicing law "because of the ability of our legal system to equalize the playing field between those with great power and influence and those without." He earned a bachelor's degree in government from the University of Texas in 1979, going on to receive his J.D. from the University of Houston in 1982. Oxford has run for various seats on the high court every other year since 2006.

These candidates will compete in the November 4 general election. Candidates who did not receive a majority vote in the primary will compete in a runoff election to be held on May 27.

Open seats, swing districts attract challengers in Florida

Florida: Four sitting judges on the Broward County Court are facing challengers, and two dozen will run unopposed. Additionally, six candidates are competing for two open seats on the court.

Seventeenth Circuit Court judges in some of the state’s key population centers are vacating their seats after their terms expire, providing motivation for half a dozen lawyers to compete for the open positions. Dennis Bailey, Andrea Ruth Gundersen, Rhoda Sokoloff and Russell Thompson are competing for a spot on the Seventeenth Circuit Court, group 16, a position currently held by Mel Grossman. The upcoming departure of judge Jeffrey E. Streitfeld will leave an opening for group 17 of the same circuit, with Julie Shapiro Harris and Stacey Schulman running to fill the spot.

Several incumbents face opposition as well, including, Ian Richards, whose seat has involved some tough election contests in the past. Richards won the seat by defeating Catilina M. Avalos, by less than one percent, in 2008. The seat's historical close calls make it the most volatile in Broward County for this election cycle. Richards is being challenged in the primary by Jonathan Kasen and Claudia Robinson. Ellen Feld of the Broward County Court is facing a challenge from attorney Mark W. Rickard. Feld won her seat in 2008 by defeating Julio Gonzalez. Additionally, judge Steven B. Feren will go one-on-one against challenger Patrick Contini, a race which will be determined in the nonpartisan primary on August 26. Finally, the last county match-up involves Franz Jahra McLawrence who will challenge incumbent Lynn Rosenthal. Rosenthal was appointed by Governor Rick Scott in 2012.

See also

• Judgepedia's Election Central
• 2014 judicial election dates