| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Ed Springston has written two posts raising ethical issues relating to a sitting judge on the Jefferson Circuit Court - Judge Charlie Cunningham and his rulings and comments from the bench in a partisan challenge to a Kentucky State Senate race. For your information.
Here are Mr. Springston's posts:
"Does Judge Charlie Cunningham have ethics problems?"
and
"Judge Charlie Cunningham screws up the 37th State Senate District race"
The rumors of the past several weeks has gained traction with a formal response by Senate President David Williams that he would consider accepting an appointment to the circuit court bench. Nothing about him or another submitting his name to the Judicial Nominating Commision for the circuit in question or if a "deal" or "arrangement" has been struck to hasten his exit from the state senate.
This is not the first time that our Governor has used the judicial vacancy appointment process to solve his partisan political issues in state government by "rewarding" them with distinguished judicial appointments which enhance the opponent's prestige, position, and pensions.
Now to consider appointing Williams to the bench is to politicize the judiciary in a way that can only puzzle court watchers who want an independent and judicious judiciary and not a haven for politicians in their twilight moments.
Or as Shoeless Joe Jackson was queried (my parody): "Say it ain't so, Stevie!"
Of course, in baseball being sent to the bench was not a good sign for a ball player.
The nominating commission is scheduled to meet on Oct. 26 to consider the appointments. However, there is more than just considering a nomination, Mr. Williams will have to have his name submitted to be considered.
When a judicial vacancy occurs, the executive secretary of the JNC notifies all attorneys and the public in the affected judicial circuit or district. Attorneys can recommend someone or nominate themselves. Interested attorneys must complete an application and return it to the executive secretary of the JNC.
The chief justice meets with the JNC to select three nominees and then forwards those names to the governor. The names of the three nominees are listed in alphabetical order without indicating the commission’s preference. The governor must appoint a judge from this list of three. If the governor does not appoint a judge within 60 days of receiving the list of nominees, the appointment is made by the chief justice from the list of nominees.
From the AOC Web Site.
Here is a link and an extract of the story by Joseph Gerth who leaked this story earlier in his political column. Read the entire story by following the link.
Senate President David Williams would consider appointment to circuit court bench
Senate President David Williams said through a spokeswoman Thursday that he would consider a judicial appointment if it was offered to him.That possibility has been a subject of speculation since Sept. 17, when Circuit Judge Eddie C. Lovelace died in a hospital in Nashville, Tenn. Lovelace served in the state’s 40th judicial circuit, which includes Williams’ hometown of Burkesville.
Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear will have the authority to appoint a replacement for Lovelace once a judicial nominating commission meets and recommends three lawyers to succeed him.
* * *
Williams had previously declined to comment on his interest in the position and had, in fact, criticized Beshear in the past when he appointed other Senate Republicans to high-paying positions in an effort to win back control of the Senate for the Democrats.
“If there is an appointment offer, Sen. Williams will consider it,” Williams spokeswoman Lourdes Baez-Schrader said in a statement Thursday.
More from the AOC Web Site regarding the notice of vacancy, etc.
Vacancy for the 40th Judicial Circuit, Clinton, Cumberland & Monroe counties.
Applications for this vacancy will be sought once members of the Judicial Nominating Commission have been appointed by the Governor.
In Jefferson County there were two incredibly close judicial elections decided by just a few hundred votes! Out of over 185,000 plus votes cast. My oh my!!!
Anyone besides me wondering if there will be a re-canvas or a re-count?
| CIRCUIT JUDGE 11 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | |||
| Number of Precincts | 537 | ||
| Precincts Reporting | 537 | 100.0 % | |
| Total Votes | 195304 | ||
|
|
|||
| John J. VANDERTOLL | 97071 | 49.70% | |
| Brian C. EDWARDS | 97741 | 50.05% | |
| Write-in Votes | 492 | 0.25% | |
| DISTRICT JUDGE 17 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | |||
| Number of Precincts | 537 | ||
| Precincts Reporting | 537 | 100.0 % | |
| Total Votes | 184032 | ||
|
|
|||
| Erica Lee WILLIAMS | 92058 | 50.02% | |
| A. Christine WARD | 91457 | 49.70% | |
| Write-in Votes | 517 | 0.28% | |
For those interested in the money raised up through 10/18/2010 for the primary and the general elections for these four candidates:
John J. Vandertoll $339,496.96
Brian C. Edwards $119,918.93
Erica Lee Williams $94,030.56
A.Christine Ward $85,010.55
Of course, this does no reflect the moneys raised and disbured in the weeks before the general election.
Now, that's a lot of money raised for positions that pay $120,000 or so per year.
The Courier-Journal editorial folks are now issuing their endorsements for contested judicial elections in November. Editorial Endorsement | Judicial Contests in Divisions 3,7,6,10, 11 . However, please note that Divisions 6 and 11 are in CIRCUIT COURT; the rest are in DISTRICT COURT
They posted five today.
I agree with four of their five.
I do not agree with their failure to endorse Judge Claude Prather. Their reasoning and analysis are not only weak but suspect.
I agree with the CJ's following endorsements.
However, the Curious Journal did miss the mark in endorsing Sandra McLaughlin over incumbent Judge Claude Prather who has now served 8 years on the bench and already has the endorsement of Citizens for Better Judges and very favorable marks from lawyers in the Louisville Bar Associations Judicial poll.
Judge Claude Prather has my vote. He is currently sitting on the bench, having been elected back in 2002, and now having served the public well for these past 8 years. The Courier's notes that Ms. McLaughlin has studied political science, clerked for a Supreme Court justice, and served as a county attorney (per CJ), guardian ad litem attorney and volunteer with the Legal Aid Society. When stacked up to a sitting judge doing a darn good job, these attributes are not enough. No disrespect intended to Ms. Sandra L. McLaughlin who is challenging him for this race, but Judge Prather is just doing too good a job.
You don't have to take my word for it. Judge Prather has been endorsed by Citizens for Better Judges - this endorsement is highly valued and respected among lawyers and those involved in the legal profession.
Don't take the "blue ribbon" committee's word for it. The 2009 Louisville Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Poll offers further insight. A poll by lawyers who practice in Jefferson District Court thought Judge Prather was doing a great job as he received a 95% approval rating and was one of two highest rated district court judge in 2009 bar poll. What is the bar poll? Those lawyers who practice in district court and who know the good judges, the hard working judges. And those in the know, place their faith and trust in Judge Prather to hear their cases and do justice. Now that's a pretty good endorsement too.
Please note that the other four candidates endorsed in this round also had Citizens for Better Judges endorsements. Why not Judge Prather? I guess it boiled down to a perception by the Curious Journal's editors that the challenger had "fresh ideas and energy". Little do they know this judge!
I cannot disagree with the CJ any more on this one. Judge Prather has years of experience, hard work, family, friends, integrity, and competence plus a tireless energy when he was campaigning that put me to shame. All these qualities mean more than a "fresh idea" or two. District Court requires judges who work hard, day in day out, day after day, week after week.
What is even more perplexing is how the Courier-Journal overlooked the 2004 story in their own paper by Jason Riley in which Sandra McLeod (now McLaughlin) was fired by Commonwealth Attorney David Stengle "amid allegations she grabbed and berated a juror who helped acquit a man accused of rape." See, "Juror Incident leads to firing, Prosecutor says she didn't grab, berate woman". Also, quoted in the Courier's January 14, 2004 story was Jefferson Circuit Court Chief Judge James Shake regarding Sandra McLeod (now McLaughlin's) conduct -
"It's extremely inappropriate and unprofessional. . . . It's intolerable."
The Courier can't seem to get all the facts in order since McLeod McLaughlin was a prosecutor with the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and not the County Attorney's Office. And, their reference that Prather was a "tool and die maker" seems to ignore the fact that in addition to being a hard worker in the trenches that Prather also was a labor relations specialist involved in negotiating conracts at GE, a union steward, and a delegate for several years with the Greater Louisville Central Labor Council.
You can count on Claude to do the job. He treats lawyers and litigants with respect. That's what a judge is supposed to do.
I will share this bit of advice I received from "Claude" back when we were both on the campaign trail in 2002, and I had to go speak to the various groups regarding their support. I remember his advice - "Don't let them make their cause, your cause." As a judge, you have but one cause - justice. He followed that ethical guideline during the campaign and on the bench. I understand he still maintains that independence.
We deserve a judge who works as hard as we do; Claude is one of those judges. He has not slowed down a bit, and has a love for the job and for people and for doing the right thing.
Judge Prather has my vote. I hope he has yours.
Due to the unique relevance to lawyers, judges, and the current campaign season, I have posted substantial portions of this story by Andrew Wolfson.
One comment on the story posted on-line basically sees the writing on the wall if the changes continue in the current direction; eg., "So much for justice being blind. "For Sale" signs out in judiciary campaigns - Can't wait for that one." One can't argue much with the portent of things to come with this decision and the decision last year by SCOTUS which opened the corporate coffers for campaign contributions.
Here is another development in the continuing changes in judicial elections with a further partisan politicization of the process. Soon we will be seeing party endorsements, if not slates, of candidates.
The above image is from the book by C. harles Ashman, "The Finest Judges Money Can Buy and Other Forms of Judicial Polution". Click on this link to obtain the book from Amazon.com.
For the full text of Marcus Carey v. Stephen Wolnitzek, click here.
And for some commentary from Marcus Carey's blog at BlueGrassBulletin.com:
I Stood Up For The Constitution, And Won
I am thrilled to announce that the United States District Court for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the decision in my case wherein I challenged the Canons of Judicial Ethics in 2006 as violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Here are a few highlights from today's decision, Carey vs. Wolnitzek:
From the Courier Journal:
Kentucky judicial hopefuls get right to solicit funds, reveal party
Judicial candidates in Kentucky have a First Amendment right to announce their political party affiliation and to directly solicit campaign contributions, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
"Elections are elections, and the same First Amendment applies to all of them," a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said.
The panel also questioned another rule that bars judicial candidates from pledging to rule a certain way on issues likely to come before them, but sent that back to a federal judge for additional consideration.
Marcus Carey, a former Republican Party leader from Northern Kentucky who lost a Kentucky Supreme Court race in 2006 and challenged the rules, said: "It's a great day for the Constitution."
But two candidates for Jefferson District Court said that they won't take advantage of either portion of the ruling because they think the changes will erode confidence in the impartiality of the courts.
"Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should go out and do it," Judge Claude Prather said.
He and challenger Sandy McLaughlin, a former prosecutor, said they will continue to use committees to seek campaign contributions, rather than soliciting donations themselves.
"I just don't believe in putting pressure on people to do that," Prather said.
McLaughlin said litigants would be uncomfortable appearing before somebody who had advertised that he belonged to a different political party.
District court seats in Kentucky are up for election this year; circuit judges don't run for re-election until 2014.
Under the ruling, judicial candidates will still run in nonpartisan elections and their political party won't be identified on the ballot.
Steve Wolnitzek, chairman of the state Judicial Conduct Commission, a defendant in Carey's suit, said it would be up to the state Supreme Court, which sets judicial election rules, to decide whether to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Carey also challenged a portion of a rule that bars judicial candidates from making statements committing them to rule a certain way "in a case, controversy, or issue that is likely to come before the court."
