JP Election Brief: Alabama dollars to Washington lawsuits (and more!)

October 4, 2012

by: the State Court Staff

Every Thursday, Judgepedia's State Court Staff examines 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.

Important dates

Filing deadlines

• Oct. 7: Filing deadline for the Alaska general election
• Oct. 8: Filing deadline for the Arizona general election

Want to know more about Judgepedia's 2012 election coverage?
Check out Judgepedia's Election Central for details!

Money, platforms and support in the Alabama Chief Justice race

Alabama: Campaign finance reports submitted at the end of September paint a grim picture for Roy Moore when it comes to the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice race. At the end of last month, Moore had $192,895 left in his campaign chest. Meanwhile, Bob Vance entered the race strong after joining in August. At the end of September, he had $433,911. Of course, these numbers reflect only funds amassed by the campaigns, without taking into account special interest groups or political action committees' contributions. Still, a strong entry by Vance may symbolize a willingness to defeat Moore by outside support.

Someone vocally supporting Judge Vance is former Supreme Court Justice Gorman Houston. Houston was an associate justice on the high court when Moore was Chief Justice, and formerly supported and donated to Moore's campaigns. This week Houston publicly shared his perspective of the Ten Commandments monument situation which lead to Moore's removal from the court by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. He also accused Moore of being poor at building consensus and worsening relationships between the judiciary and other branches of government.

In addition to campaigning these days, Moore is giving presentations to church groups with his Foundation for Moral Law nonprofit group. During a speech this Sunday, he steered clear of discussing the campaign. Instead he focused on the importance of the acknowledgement of God in the courthouse and explained his perspective of the situation leading to his 2003 removal.

With only one month to go before the general election, one can imagine that advertising and campaigning will increase by these candidates in this close race.

In the News

Residency challenged in Superior Court race

Washington: The race for a position on the Thurston County Superior Court in Washington could take an interesting turn in the next few weeks.

As things currently stand, Christine Schaller will face Jim Johnson for the vacant Position 2 seat in the general election on November 6. However, Schaller's candidacy has been challenged by a group that includes Johnson, the two other candidates who ran against Schaller in the primary (Marie Clarke and Victor M. Minjares) and a local attorney. The group claims that Schaller is ineligible for the position because she lives in Pierce County, not Thurston County; they argue that state law requires candidates to live in the county in which they wish to serve. Schaller, a former resident of Thurston County, contends that "the state constitution has no such requirement for judicial candidates and...the constitution trumps state law."

At the end of August, Judge Sally Olsen of the Kitsap County Superior Court ruled that Schaller is eligible to run for the position, finding that the only requirement the state's constitution imposes on potential judicial candidates is that they be licensed to practice law in the state of Washington.

Now, the group challenging Schaller's candidacy has asked the Washington State Supreme Court to review Judge Olsen's ruling. The high court will hear oral arguments in the case on October 18.

Effort to stop judicial retentions sprouts up in Illinois

Illinois: A grassroots organization called "Citizens for Judicial Integrity" has appeared on the Illinois election stage, opposing the retentions of four judges of the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County. The organization is backed by the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and is hoping to oust David A. Hylla, John Knight, Barbara Crowder and Chief Judge Ann Callis this November.

Doug Whitley, President of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, explained his support of the anti-retention effort, stating,

“

The citizens and voters of Madison County need to be relieved of the burden of the reputation of this county for being anti-business, where companies are shaken down in the courthouse.

”

Whitley was especially unhappy with Judge Crowder, but he described Chief Judge Callis as "decent".

For a judge to be retained in Illinois, they need to secure 3/5ths of the vote. Traditionally, retention elections have been uncontroversial and predictable. However, the decision of voters in neighboring Iowa to oust three judges in 2010 may influence Illinois residents to challenge their own judges.

Judicial candidate fined for using misleading information

Ohio: The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio has recommended that judicial candidate Colleen O'Toole be fined $1,000 for using misleading information during her campaign. The Board found that O'Toole violated the code of conduct by giving the impression that she is a current judge on the court. The candidate's campaign badge was also found to be in violation. The badge reads: “Colleen Mary O’Toole Judge 11th District Court of Appeals.” The Board said the badge was misleading because it implied that O'Toole was an incumbent.

O'Toole defended herself, arguing that judicial candidates and judges do not give up their right to free speech. She stated,

“

I have to pay the price for standing up for my constitutional rights.

”

O'Toole is running for the Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals and will face incumbent Judge Mary Jane Trapp in the November 6 general election.

Indiana voters must have photo ID

Indiana: Early voting is underway in Indiana; absentee voting by mail began in mid-September and early in-person voting begins October 9. Absentee by-mail ballots must be received by October 29th to be counted in the November election.

Though many voter ID laws have faced scrutiny and been subsequently defeated during this election cycle, Indiana voters should note that Indiana does have such a law, enacted in 2005. The Indiana law was found constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2008, and requires voters to have photo identification in order to vote. Acceptable photo ID is defined as government issued identification; passports, driver's license, and other state-issued ID are acceptable. Identification must be shown at time of voting to vote in person. Indiana's law, among the strictest in the nation, has been cited by defenders of voter ID laws in other states during this election cycle, but to little effect.

See also

• Judgepedia's Election Central