Kentucky Law Review

KBA: Election Ballots for Vice President in the Mail - Please mail them in!

I have been asked by others about the upcoming election for Vice President of the Kentucky Bar Association and how I was voting.  To save time and emails, I will share with you that I am voting for Scott Madden. 

In any event, please vote.  If you do not know either candidate, then ask someone whom you trust to give you a good recommendation. 

Ballots for the election for Vice President of the Kentucky Bar Association have been mailed and may be in your mailbox as you read this.  Historically, if the ballot is not completed and mailed the first few days, then it is never mailed at all.  Furthermore, the "turnout" traditionally has been small so that a small group favoring a particular candidate can exercise more influence than they should. 

Recent events in the news show that the people we select are important in position and public perception.  The best way to work on your individual image as an attorney is to select those who will lead your professional association who possess a stellar reputation and image as well. 

If you are not familiar with the candidates, then ask another lawyer; just like your non-lawyer friends ask you about which judges to vote for at election time.

As for me, I am voting for Scott Madden.   I would encourage you to vote for him too.

If you disagree, then vote for the person of your choice; but vote.

JUDGES: Financial reports show that Katie King raised $296,550 in her recent election with $194,000 of her own money

Andrew Wolfson has a post-election story on the election finances and concerns over the sources of funds for Judge Katie King's recent election which unseated Judge David Holton who had been appointed by Gov. Beshear.   Click on heading for his entire story.  Several readers have made some serious comments (and some a little biting) but nonetheless raise concerns about the financial reporting laws in Kentucky and enforcement.

Note that the personal loans from Katie King total an amount of her"own money" was comparable to the total amount spent by each of the individual candidates for the Kentucky Supreme Court race.

King lent $194,000 to her campaign for judge
She says source was 'personal accounts'

By Andrew Wolfson • awolfson@courier-journal.com • December 12, 2008


Katie King, who earned $41,465 a year as an assistant county attorney, lent $194,000 to her successful campaign for Jefferson District Court judge, campaign finance records show.
Advertisement

King, who was sworn in and began serving Nov. 26, replied by e-mail to a reporter's query about the money this week by saying it came from her "personal accounts." But she declined to answer questions about how she accumulated the money, whether it came from relatives, or when she acquired it.

King's father, Jim King, the owner of King Southern Bank, president of the Louisville Metro Council and an active participant in his daughter's campaign, referred questions to his lawyer, Sheryl Snyder, who relayed them to Katie King.

* * *

Records filed last week show that Katie King raised $296,550 for the general election, including seven loans she made to her campaign totaling $194,000. She spent $250,966 on the campaign. Holton raised $44,310 and spent all but about $800 of it.

One of the comments to the Courier Story:  Professor72 wrote -

Judge King, your honor, you can stop all the speculation immediately. Reveal the campaign bank account deposit records to prove you loaned the money from existing funds in your own bank account before you filed for the office, because that is legal. Referring these simple questions to a lawyer to answer for you seems to indicate you need someone to speak for you so we citizens don't hear the answers from you directly. You are recieving the benefit of the doubt, but why allow any doubt at all?

LAWYERS: Ned Pillersdorf and how "I spent 30 hours listening to lawyers, arguing about boundaries and helping in the election of a new president"

I received the following story about Ned Pillersdorf, an attorney from Prestonsburg, who showed his commitment to fair and free elections as he traveled to Ohio to serve as a "Counselor for Change."

Here is the story from the Daily Yonder.  I have extracted part of the story Ned Pillersdorf wrote sharing his experience on this road trip for change. 

Speak Your Piece: The Election Seen From One Poll In Zanesville

My 30 or so hours spent in Ohio on election eve and election day as an attorney observer were filled with tension, tedium, frustration, comic intervention, hilarity and finally exhilaration and joy. It was anything but dull.

This journey began when I sent $100 and my contact information to the Barack Obama campaign in early February. After receiving hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from the campaign, one item caught my attention. I was offered the opportunity to be a “Counselor for Change.” This meant serving as a lawyer observer at the polls on election day in Ohio. The journey was enticing because I would be joined by the legendary John and Jean Rosenberg of Prestonsburg, Kentucky, veterans of the civil rights movement who worked for the Department of Justice in the early sixties. John actually filed the first voting rights act lawsuit against the governor of Mississippi, the day after President Johnson signed the law in 1965.

Our instructions were to join four hundred other lawyers at a synagogue in Columbus on election eve for poll observer training. Being in the same room with hundreds of other lawyers is an environment I consider to be roughly equivalent to torture. While I am a lawyer, and have been for more than 27 years, the truth is I can’t stand lawyers, especially lawyers huddled together. What do they talk about? Themselves, of course and the fact they have never lost a case, legal struggle, etc.,. When they finish describing their great legal ability, they talk about themselves, their cars and homes.

This gathering of lawyers was remarkably different. There was a palpable tension in the air and a laser-like focus on the task at hand: policing the polls on Election Day. Many of the lawyers were from other places. Rather than talk about themselves, there were intense discussions as to the intricacies of Ohio election law, and a general belief that the election would be stolen if we weren’t careful. There was also a serious, subdued atmosphere. This was Ohio of course, where four years earlier John Kerry lost the election.

Fittingly, the last speaker at the training introduced to us as Cam Kerry. He did not identify himself as or mention that he was the somewhat shorter brother of John Kerry. Instead he painfully reminisced about what had happened in Ohio four years earlier. While it has been four years, it was clear that to him, it still felt like the pain was inflicted four minutes ago.

I was assigned to Zanesville, Ohio, to be an outside poll watcher. (John and Jean were sent to Columbus). Zanesville is located about an hour east of Columbus. Zanesville is economically distressed, and had just been visited by Joe Biden a few hours before I arrived on election eve. The primary job of an outside attorney poll watcher is to monitor the anticipated long line and offer paper ballots to those who might have to wait too long and leave out of frustration.

I was at my post at 5:45 a.m. to find no line, but a steady stream of voters. Nothing was happening, so at about 11:00 a.m., I called the Obama campaign and asked for another assignment. The line was never long, and I felt I could be more useful elsewhere. Just as I ended the cell phone call, the adventure began.

All day I had observed a heavy set young woman hanging around in the parking lot handing out some type of pamphlet. Suddenly appearing on the scene were five or six young workers, wearing coordinated light blue t-shirts, who were also handing out pamphlets. The light blue t-shirters were a gay rights advocacy group, whose material was to promote a bill in the state legislature. I found their presence to make no sense. Unlike in the other states, there was no gay rights initiative on the Ohio ballot in this election cycle.

Predictably the Board of Election officials came out to chase these folks away, apparently for violating the 100-foot electioneering rule. I then spent the next ten minutes trying to referee what I thought was a humorous but intense argument about whether any or all of these folks were within the 100-foot boundary. Is the boundary measured from the polling place door? The flags outside? Or perhaps the machines inside the building?

Finally someone, and I’m not sure who, said, “They’re calling the Sheriff.” In that moment, summoning all of my lawyer’s skills, I announced that I had located the 100-foot line and urged all to stay behind. No one was happy. Everyone was mad. I must confess I thought all of the histrionics were comical. Minutes later, my cell phone began ringing and ringing. Our argument, boundary dispute, etc. had made its way up the levels of the Obama campaign. I abruptly ended the constant calls by declaring that I had resolved the situation, which was true to a degree.

Then the McCain people arrived. Two well-dressed women started handing out McCain stuff, behind the lines. Suddenly emerging from the McCain car was an older gentleman who was visibly and very angry. Then another car pulled up filled with new voters.

The angry McCain gentleman approached the voters from the front of the car. Big mistake. If he had looked at the rear of the car, he would have noticed the dozen or so left-leaning bumper stickers, and the hand written proclamation, “IMPEACH BUSH.” It didn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that these folks were there to vote for Obama. The angry McCain pamphleteer was oblivious to the political messages.

I would like to say that I used my lawyer listening skills and could relate the substance of the parking lot conversation/confrontation, but I can’t. The reason I can’t so relate is that I was convulsed with laughter at the political spectacle I was watching. The rest of the afternoon passed with the warring factions glaring at each other behind my improvised 100-foot barrier line.

Driving home to Kentucky that night, I could not escape the palpable tension and passion that I had observed in Ohio. After initial deep gloom I experienced when it was announced that Obama had lost Kentucky (badly), my mood was instantly transformed with the joyful exhilaration when Wolf Blitzer announced that Ohio had gone for Obama. From that moment my cell phone started ringing. My wife told me that at a Kentucky election party, someone had credited me with the Ohio victory.

There is exactly zero amount of truth to such a pronouncement. To even suggest it, is an insult to the patriotic, unselfish, determined and colorful folks I had observed working for Obama in Ohio. My reward was to have a front row seat to a very small slice of American history in the parking lot of that Zanesville, Ohio, precinct. As the Master Card commercial says, the value of my seat was “priceless.”

Ned Pillersdorf is an attorney in Prestonsburg, Kentucky.

Strange Google News Alert Looked like a story close to home,,,,, not!

Here is a story with an interesting idea on judicial elections that goes beyond elections, appointments, retention, free speech, campaign solicitation, partisan identification and more, but talks about public financing of a state supreme court election.

What drew this story to my attention (which was culled by my google (tm) alert criteria was the similarity of names (Supreme Court Justice Abramson v. Abrahamson and a challenge by a Jefferson County Judge) but out of Wisconsin, not Kentucky.  Another reminder that we may think we are unique, but we are not:

Abrahamson repeats call for public financing of Court elections
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Milwaukee,WI,USA
A member of the court since 1976, she is seeking a new 10-year term and is expected to be challenged by Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Randy R. ...

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: A little after the election flavor of what it was like on the campaign trail

This is an old pre-election piece from Angie Fenton at the Courier-Journal, but it gives you a taste of what judicial campaigning and pressing the flesh entails.  Is it all work, all play, or little bit of both on the campaign trail?  You decide.

Power party

DJ Reggie Regg kept the dance floor hopping Saturday night at the Yearlings Club's 11th Annual Black College Alumni Dance at the Horseshoe Casino in Elizabeth, Ind..

Kentucky state Sen. Gerald Neal and his wife, Kathy Cooksie-Neal, were among the revelers.

Several judicial candidates also attended the soiree, including Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson, Jefferson District Judge David Holton, Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Anne Dedman Watkins, attorney Ann Bailey Smith, attorney John VanderToll and Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Katie King.

My [Angie Fenton] favorite moment of the evening? Watching Roger Wilson, president of the civic club, spice things up during the introduction of the organization's membership and groove across the dance floor. He set the tone for the rest of the night.

And here is another 'after the fact' pre-election post, post-election.  Yes, it is work.  Pat Mulvihill is a lawyer with the Jefferson County attorney's office.

Some folks enjoy post-election pause

By Katya Cengel • kcengel@courier-journal.com • November 7, 2008

Tuesday morning, Pat Mulvihill was working the Douglass Loop area.
Advertisement

He stood amid the newspaper racks outside Twig & Leaf restaurant holding a sign for Judge David Holton.

Mulvihill had arrived at 7 a.m. in a Holton T-shirt, left at 9 a.m. for a family funeral and returned that afternoon. He didn't make it home for dinner with his two children, ages 1 and 2. There haven't been many family dinners in the eight months he has worked to support Holton, who lost to Katie King.

But that morning, before he left, he promised his 2-year-old son, Jack, who's almost 3, that "Daddy's going to start coming home now, start having regular dinners together."

Now that the election is over, many who played roles in it -- and some who didn't -- are ready to fill their days with something else. For Mulvihill, a 38-year-old Louisville attorney, that means more dinners with his kids and weekends watching ballgames.

Since March, few days have passed that Mulvihill hasn't done something for the campaign. Weekends and vacation days were spent putting up yard signs, attending events and walking door to door for Holton for the 16th Division seat on Jefferson District Court. If he followed sports, it was on the radio, so on Nov. 14 he plans to attend a University of Kentucky basketball game with his wife.

Mulvihill is ready for a break and is taking his family to Florida Thanksgiving weekend.

"I'm looking forward to it," he said. "It will be relaxing, therapeutic. …"
Ready for the end

Mark Hebert likes his job. But even the WHAS-TV political reporter said he was ready for the election to be over "about two months ago. That just didn't happen."

Hebert said he was tired of the TV and radio ads and the late-night phone calls.

* * *

Hebert is ready to move on too. Wednesday he was working on a new story -- about who might run against Sen. Jim Bunning in 2010.

"There's always politics in Kentucky," said Hebert. "Every day of the year, there's some political story out there … waiting for me or someone else to cover."

Reporter Katya Cengel can be reached at (502) 582-4224.

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: Jefferson County District & Circuit Court Races - King, Cunningham, Bowles, and Smith prevail

From Courier-Journal:

Jefferson county district and circuit courts
King ousts Holton in tight district court race

By Jason Riley • jriley@courier-journal.com • November 5, 2008

In what was arguably one of the most anticipated -- and expensive -- races for a local judicial seat in recent memory, Katie King, a 29-year-old assistant county attorney, narrowly defeated Judge David Holton for the 16th division seat on Jefferson District Court.

King -- who won 52 percent of the vote -- has practiced law one year longer than the two years required for the job.

But she was a tireless campaigner with name recognition -- her father is Metro Council President Jim King -- and she spent more than $210,000 on the campaign.
* * *
Other court races

There was less suspense in the race for a seat on Jefferson Circuit Court, which was vacated by Denise Clayton, who is now on the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Charlie Cunningham, who was appointed to fill Clayton's spot, cruised past former Judge William Douglas Kemper.

Cunningham, who suffered a tough defeat in a 2006 judicial race, said last night's victory was built in part on the work he and his supporters did two years ago.

"It was a much more pleasant way to spend the evening," said Cunningham of last night's results. "It feels real good."

Kemper, a former prosecutor in the Jefferson commonwealth's attorney's office who served nine months as a judge in 2006, said he would not run again.

"That is my professional dream, but my family is my passion," he said. "And I've sacrificed too much of my family life to pursue my dream."

In Jefferson District Court Division 2, longtime public defender Ann Bailey Smith easily defeated attorney John VanderToll.

In an interview, Smith said she is "excited and humbled" to serve as a judge. "It has been exhausting," she said of the campaign, "but I have met some wonderful people all across the county."

And in District Court Division 8, David Bowles edged out Anne Dedman Watkins, a prosecutor in the Jefferson County attorney's office, to succeed Judge Deborah Deweese.

D. Stephen Parks and Theodore "Ted" Shouse rounded out the field.

Bowles, a former Jefferson County police officer, said he was "thrilled to have the opportunity to serve the community."

Watkins said she was encouraged by her showing in her first judicial race and hopes that it will pay off in the future. "There will be a next time," she said.

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: "Abramson defeats Shake to keep seat"

From Courier Journal (click on heading for entire story):

Abramson defeats Shake to keep seat
She will serve rest of McAnulty's term

By Andrew Wolfson • awolfson@courier-journal.com • November 5, 2008

In a battle of two candidates considered highly qualified, Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson yesterday defeated Chief Jefferson Circuit Judge Jim Shake to retain her seat on the court.
Advertisement

Abramson, who was appointed to the high court last year to succeed the late William E. McAnulty Jr., will serve the remaining six years of his term.

"I am honored and truly humbled by the support of voters in Jefferson County," Abramson said in an interview last night, expressing surprise at the margin of her victory.

She took 55 percent of the vote.

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: Results of contested Jefferson County judicial races

It's not official, but WLKY and the SOS site point to the following winners in the contested races  today:

Supreme Court - Lisabeth Hughes Abramson
Circuit Court - Charlie Cunningham
District Court - Ann Bailey Smith, David Bowles and Katie King

The uncontested races were Judge Denise Clayton for Court of Appeals and Judge Irv Maze for Circuit Court.

For SOS web site:  http://electionresults.ky.gov/KyElectWeb/kes?AC=1&L=3056

Election Eve Ruminations - Thanks to those who were in the arena, and congratulations to those who prevailed at the ballot box

Nearly a  year's worth of campaigning is about to end with the election on Tuesday.  At this time, I take a moment to reflect and ruminate and share with you how momentous this occasion is; and  thanking those who strived and congratulating and challenging those who prevailed. 

Some take this electoral process for granted; I do not.  Having served overseas wearing our nation's military uniform, I am very familiar that as Americans we have rights, privileges, and responsibilities that many nations and peoples from around the globe can neither comprehend nor appreciate.

Although each race will have but one person garnering the most votes to serve as a judge, I am reminded that all are winners - all the candidates and all of us.  For without those making the sacrifice to serve us and to serve others where would we be?  Not in the United States; not in the oldest, continuous republic the world has ever known. 

Let us not forget the revolution of 1776 which blazed the words in the Declaration of Independence that all of us are created equal; the revolution of 1787-88 which founded our Constitution with the preamble recognizing that all power derives from "we the people"; and the revolution of 1800 in which our new republic peaceably transferred the power from one group to another.  Our freedoms were not given to us on a silver platter; they were earned by the blood, sweat and tears (not to mention the pledges of their sacred honor) of our founding fathers and every generation that has followed them since.

We, as a nation, have survived and prospered from revolution, civil war, and world wars; financial booms and busts; and a multitude of power transfers in government.  And through it all, we still remain "we the people." 

For "we the people" are what it is all about when it comes to elections.

The judicial candidates speak about their qualifications to serve, their desires to be elected, and why they are more qualified than the others.  However, it is not about the wants, needs, or desires of any candidate, but rather it is about the needs, wants, and desires of the people in whom they honor to be their public servants.  When it comes to elective office, never forget this is the one time that it is about us and a public trust given to those who are honored and privileged to have received our most precious civic gift - our vote.

When the dust settles, and the election is behind us,  the business of justice and government will continue.  No recriminations against those who did not vote or support a candidate; and more importantly, no favoritism for those who did.  To do otherwise would demean the office, the person, and the public by mortgaging a vote for justice and a disintegration of the public trust in the judiciary.

I know this blog post will not be read by many (it is too long), but it will be read by a few.  Hopefully, it will be read by those who have endeavored to enter the arena. 

For those who prevail in this election, remember not only your oath of office, but your pledge of allegiance to this nation -

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands: One nation, under God, indivisible, With liberty and justice for all."

All means all, and not those who favored or disfavored any individual candidate in the exercise of their right to vote.

For those who endeavored but came up short in votes but not short in service -  YOU are a winner in my book, and the book of all those who rallied behind you; not to mention those who did not vote for you.  For without your entry into the arena, there would have been no choice, no election, no democracy in action, and no justice for all.  You have brought out the best in them by your presence and your challenge.  To you, I dedicate the remarks found in President  Theodore Roosevelt's speech of 1912:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

And for all us who voted, be thankful for having good people who cared enough to have volunteered to serve you - be respectful and appreciative of them and their efforts;  "justice for all"  means for all and not only you.

And for those who will take the oath of office to serve in the public trust as judge or justice, then I commend to you a reminder from Luke 12:48 (NET).  The partisanship campaigning is now at an end; you have been entrusted with much and much more will be expected and required of you.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be required,  and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked.

I need not remind those what the remainder of that particular verse said of the servant who fell short.  There will be another election, another accounting, and potentially a "beating" at the ballot for those who did not measure up.

In conclusion, I am reminded of a dissenting opinion by Lisa Hughes Abramson who is one our candidates for Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court

Our world is full of inconvenient truths. We accomplish nothing for families, the broader community and our justice system when we deny those truths.
J.N.R. and J.S.R. v. Hon. Joseph O'Reilly, (dissenting opinion, Abramson, Justice).

This sage advice is not limited to matters of family law, but other truths that we may encounter in this world.  Truths that go beyond elections.  Truths that shake the very core of our republic with each election being tantamount to a revolution and the peaceful transfer of authority and power from one person to another.  Hard truths and even harder decisions that our judiciary make every day, from district court through to our highest court.

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: Video of Candidate Judge Jim Shake for Kentucky Supreme Court Justice

In this continuing series on the new media in judicial campaigns, I am offering an example of a candidate meeting with a group talking to them about his qualifications to serve.

In this example, Chief Judge of the Jefferson Circuit Court James "Jim" Shake is a candidate for Kentucky Supreme Court Justice from Jefferson County.  The other candidate is Lisabeth Hughes Abramson.   He's talking to a group and discusses with them his qualifications, experience, and background.