Today, I am sharing a letter to the editor from the Courier Journal in support of Judge Katie King. The letter was written by Steven Magre, former President of the Louisville Board of Alderman, and sets out two points that seem to have been overlooked by bloggers and media in coming down on Judge King.
To these I add - biting commentary from the pundits is not proof that inappropriate election conduct occurred, and I thus submit to all that we are a nation founded upon a "rule of law" so let the process work with the judicial campaign conduct committee and the state judicial conduct committee (as well as the election finance regulators). In addition, Magre is correct in his personal assessment which more importanly belies an objective assessment - do you really think the law was violated by a Metro Council President, bank president, loving father when they had some of the best legal advice in the state available, a former metro council member spokesperson, and an advisory heads-up from the election finance regulators?
And yes, I was in her court for an appearance recently, and observed she was at task, the cases were moving smoothly, and she was judicial and in charge. I have heard others make similar comments. In any event, her next election will address her performance more so than her politics.
Two issues need to be recognized - legal vs. political. The Katie King election was non-partisan but highly political and well-funded. This may well be the nature of future judicial elections. However much some voters may not like the money and the news sound-bites etc., do not forget the fact that news was generated, blogs were ablazing, and the public was watching (albeit much less than the presidential election I might add). Public involvement and scrutiny are not a bad thing in elections.
If folks are unhappy with this judicial electoral process, then change it - elections or selections?
Oh yes, here is the letter to the editor:
I am writing in support of Judge Katie King. I voted for Judge King, though I was not directly involved in her campaign. In terms of my understanding of the specifics concerning your latest public attack, I have no direct knowledge of the financial aspects of her campaign. But I know my friend Jim King very well and know that he would never support any action that would place his bank, his integrity, his employees or one of his children in jeopardy.
And here is a final note. Without The C-J's urging, I have kept close tabs with my longtime court connections and have asked over the last few months as to how Judge King is faring. My sources tell me she is staying on task, learning and doing a professional job. What more can you ask of any elected official? She deserves a chance to perform, and like all other elected officials be judged on how well she does her job.
STEVE MAGRE
Louisville 40204
The writer is a former Louisville alderman and president of the Board of Aldermen. -- Editor.
You know the issue here is not how well she does her job. IF she got that job through illegal means it certainly would mean a great deal to those who believe our Judges should be above illegality.
Let the process take place. And really I would expect noless from Steve Magre, a well estabished insider of the machine that King works diligently. Funny though Magre was the one used for this piece instead of someone more recent and relevant to the process.
Posted by: Ed Springston | Monday, March 16, 2009 at 02:52 AM