Soros-selected judges for Tennessee

It appears that lawyers' special interest groups are gearing up for a serious fight to defend their hold on Tennessee's current unconstitutional system of selecting judges. "John Jay's college of justice" and "Help us help us help ourselves." Actually, I don't believe they were caught off guard in 2009, as the group carrying the water at that time was the TBA. This go 'round, with Republican majorities in both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly, retention-election supporters will be working under the auspices of a Soros-funded group calling itself Tennesseeans for Fair and Impartial Courts ("TFIC").

Here's more information about what we can expect from TFIC.

Voting for judges in the TN primary

I think many Tennessee voters will be mildly surprised to see the names of two judges on the ballot when they step into the polling booth tomorrow. That's part of the "beauty" of Tennessee's current (and contra-constitutional) system for filling appellate court and Supreme Court seats. Noone really knows anything of substance about the "candidates," and few faithful primary voters are likely to simply vote for "nobody."

That being said, if you agree that this system is wrong, you'll be able to register your opinion about that by voting "no" for these "candidates." Here's an excerpt from an article by Family Action Council of Tennessee's David Fowler. Judicial Elections - Judging the Judges: ("What Will Your Vote Communicate?"):

So, if you want to make a “negative” statement about things like judicial activism, Tennessee’s method of electing Supreme Court judges, etc, then the best way to make that statement is to vote “no.”

If you approve of the current system and current judicial philosophy that prevails in this country (and state), then the best way to communicate that is to vote “yes.” It would be my opinion that not to vote would leave the Judges, Governor and legislature in a position of not knowing why there were fewer people voting in the judicial elections compared to gubernatorial, congressional or state legislative races. Not to vote will leave them wondering if the low vote totals signify voter apathy or an unwillingness to vote for someone you don’t know anything about.

While I can't really say whether these two judges--Sharon Lee and John McLarty, are "judicial activists," I do think your "no" vote will signify that you disagree with them avoiding contested elections, which are plainly required by our Constitution. Go ahead, they won't take it personally. ;)



Visit the Judicial Reform Coalition Blog for more information on judicial selection in Tennessee.

Also at WisdomisVindicated blog.

Trust us lawyers to pick your judges!

This National Journal article hand wrings about campaign advocacy from certain sources. National Journal Online - Big Money Already Flowing Into Judicial Elections:

Close to four months after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to roll back restrictions on corporate political spending, conservatives continue to downplay its significance.

Predictions that the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling will unleash a torrent of corporate money are wildly overblown, free speech advocates insist. As evidence, they argue that corporate money has yet to flood elections in the 26 states that already impose no limit on corporate spending.

But a closer look at state-level elections suggests that independent political expenditures by corporations, unions and other special interests are substantial. This is particularly true in judicial elections, which have gotten dramatically costlier, nastier and more controversial over the past decade. The Citizens United ruling may impact judicial races even more drastically than federal elections, some experts argue.

Actually, a closer look merely demonstrates that "corporate" expenditures are only a smidgeon higher than expenditures from "lawyers and lobbyists" (ahhh, if only we all were able to, as individuals, give serious money to candidates we supported . . .). But the underlying message of the article (i.e., the message espoused by the experts selected by Eliza Newlin Carney to comment on the subject) is that electing judges is unwise because voters somehow don't appreciate Rule of Law. All the anti-judicial-election commenters imply that we need low-key campaigns for judges because voters cast ballots based on the political positions of judicial candidates. Actually, polling data reflect that voters care more about judicial activism than they do about a judge's position on particular issues.

Uh, what does Chief Justice Holder know about running for office?

Gender Campaign | The Fly-By | Memphis Flyer:

Last week, the [Memphis Area Women's Council] held its first Run Women Run event with Tennessee representative Karen Camper, Germantown mayor Sharon Goldsworthy, Tennessee Supreme Court chief justice Janice Holder, and attorney Ruby Wharton.

According to Deborah Clubb, executive director of the local women's council, Run Women Run was held to 'empower women with enough knowledge to know it's not impossible' to be elected to political office.

. . . .

During the non-partisan event, attendees heard advice on running for and serving in a political office. They discussed campaign strategies, financial tips, and the importance of honor and integrity in politics.

Wilder's legacy . . . aw gee

I was sad to learn of Lt. Gov. John Wilder's passing yesterday, and in various tributes to Lt. Gov. John Wilder ("Humphrey on the Hill" | knoxnews.com) it was interesting to note the several references to "the Tennessee Plan" for choosing appellate judges in our state. Tom Humphrey has assembled some charming eulogistic statements.

Roy Herron asserted in his tribute:

[Wilder] was deeply committed to the rule of law, bipartisanship, racial equality and fiscal conservatism. We will not see his likes again.

Sorry, I do not doubt that Wilder desired to serve what he perceived to be the best interest of Tennesseans, but the establishment of a process that ignored "judges shall be elected" was grossly inconsistent with "rule of law." In any event, RIP, Lt. Gov. Wilder.