JP Election Brief: Judicial voting round-up

The JP Election Brief
Pulling back the curtain on the drama of judicial elections
In this issue...
Election news from: Arkansas, Alabama, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana and Mississippi

May 8, 2014

by: State Courts Staff

Last week's primaries ended with some surprising results. You'll find all the details in our stories from Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio. In other news, we've got a story about a ruling on the voter ID law in Arkansas. Additionally, our article on Alabama takes a look at both sides of the debate about the best way to choose state court judges. Mississippi's judicial candidates are getting ready for the 2014 elections. They might win in November, but they could end up having to run for election again, in 2015. We'll tell you why. We have much more judicial candidate information too. So stay with us--all the way to November!

Important dates: Primary elections: 5/13: Nebraska, West Virginia Filing deadlines: 5/9: Mississippi 5/16: Washington

Judge finds state's voter ID law unconstitutional

Arkansas:

On April 24, Judge Tim Fox of the Sixth Circuit in Pulaski County ruled that 2013’s Act 595 violates the Arkansas Constitution. He also ruled the act was approved illegally. Act 595, passed by the Arkansas State Legislature, made the state 1 of 16 to require voters to show photo identification at polling places.

The lawsuit challenging Act 595 was filed by the state's American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter and the Arkansas Law Center, with four voters as plaintiffs. Lawyers for the offices of the attorney general and secretary of state argued that the law did not impose new qualifications, but was simply a new procedural mechanism.

The constitutional controversy over the law centers on whether the legislature may disqualify voters who do not produce photo identification at the polls. Article 3 of the state's constitution has requirements based on age, residency, citizenship and registration, but Fox found that the legislature must make new changes in the registration process, not new requirements at polling places. Poll workers were already allowed to ask for identification, but could not disqualify a voter for failing to provide it.

Governor Mike Beebe previously vetoed the bill on constitutional grounds. His veto was overruled by the Republican-dominated legislature. However, Fox found that the legislature failed to override the governor's veto with the required two-thirds majority of both chambers. He also found that voters may not be required to produce something at the polls that they were not required to produce at the time they registered to vote.

Fox’s decision is being appealed to the state supreme court, which may rule on the issue before the primary and nonpartisan judicial elections on May 20. For now, the law will stand, despite Fox’s ruling. Last week, Fox stayed his decision, saying the 75 county election commissions in the state would not have time to comply with his ruling before this week’s commencement of early voting. He also cited a possible appeal and the possible lack of time for the supreme court to decide whether to issue its own stay.

Unless the state's high court intervenes, poll workers will require voters to provide photo identification in order to vote. Any voter who lacks identification will only be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. The voter will then have to prove his or her identity at the county clerk’s office, to validate the vote, before counting is finished.

Of the 16 states which have laws requiring voters to produce identification, 8 have similarly restrictive voter ID laws that prevent a voter from casting their ballot if they fail to provide the required identification. For now, Arkansas is one of those 8 states.

Early voting underway in Arkansas

Arkansas:

Judicial elections in Arkansas occur on the same day as the primary elections for non-judicial races. This means all judicial races in the state, this year, will be on the ballot on May 20. However, early voting began on Monday, May 5, and will last until May 19. This gives everyone in Arkansas a full two weeks to cast their votes.

While it's true that many judicial candidates are running unopposed, there are many exciting races happening as well. First of all, there are three open seats on the Arkansas Supreme Court, one of which is a contested race between Robin Wynne and Tim Cullen. They are running for retiring justice Donald Corbin's seat. Justice Karen Baker is running unopposed for re-election. Rhonda Wood is unopposed to win retired justice Robert L. Brown's seat. Cliff Hoofman has held Brown's seat since January 1, 2013, but cannot run for election because he was appointed to the position. You can learn a lot of interesting things about the supreme court elections on our page, Arkansas Supreme Court elections, 2014.

13 out of the 23 state circuit courts have races with more than one candidate. Here are some of the contested races:

• In the First Circuit, Gary V. Austin and Christopher W. Morledge are running for Division 3. Jeanette Whatley is running against incumbent Ann B. Hudson, who has held the Division 5 position since 2009.
• In the Second Circuit, incumbent Lee Fergus will be challenged by Chris Jester. The Division 10 judge, Larry Boling, is not running for re-election. Jeanette Robertson and Dan Ritchey are trying to win that seat.
• In the Fourth Circuit, the current judges for Divisions 1 and 3 have challengers. Brian Lester is running against incumbent Doug Martin. Lisa Parks is running against incumbent Stacey Zimmerman.
• Ernest Sanders, Jr. and Mike Reif are competing for the Division 13 judgeship in the Sixth Circuit.
• In the Eleventh Circuit West, judge William Benton is being challenged by Mac Norton.
• Paul Post and Leigh Zuerker are running for retiring judge Mark Hewett's Division 4 position on the Twelfth Circuit.
• The two candidates competing for the Fourteenth Circuit, Division 2 seat are Jodi Carney and Deanna S. Evans.
• Terry Sullivan is running for re-election to the Fifteenth Circuit, Division 3 against Betsy Danielson.
• In the Seventeenth Circuit, Carla Fuller is challenging Division 1 judge Tom Hughes.
• Four candidates are running for Judge Vicki Cook's seat on the Eighteenth Circuit East. Cook is retiring after 21 years on the bench. The candidates are: Cecilia Dyer, John Howard, Michael H. Crawford and Wade Naramore.
• The only judge for the Nineteenth Circuit East, Kent Crow, is being challenged by Scott Jackson.
• Four of the five divisions in the Twentieth Circuit are contested races. Amy Brazil and Mike Murphy are running for Division 1. Joe Don Winningham faces Troy Braswell for Division 2. Incumbent David Clark is challenged by Angela Byrd. Finally, Doralee Chandler and H.G. Foster are running for the Division 5 seat.
• In the Twenty-Third Circuit, the race for Division 2 is between Ashley Parker and Larry K. Cook.

Highlights from North Carolina's primary

North Carolina:

Every Thursday, Judgepedia's State Courts Staff highlights interesting 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.

Amidst the slew of primary races that were decided in various states on May 6, 2014, one race stood out--the primary contest for Justice Robin Hudson's seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. Recent elections to that court have not been mellow affairs and often featured heavy spending and partisan conflicts. The race for Hudson's seat was especially anticipated as it was the only primary race for a seat on the state's high court this year. Some speculated that the two Republican candidates running against Hudson, a Democrat, could encourage a large Republican turnout and eliminate the incumbent from the competition. In the state's judicial elections, the two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary advance to the general election.

Hudson did make it past the primary and will maintain her incumbent advantage against Eric L. Levinson in the general election. She received 42.5% of the votes, while Levinson received 36.6% and Jeanette Doran was eliminated with 20.9%. After election night, in spite of earlier speculations, it was reported that Democrats accounted for approximately 42% of the voters, while Republicans represented about 31%.

In other races for superior and district judge seats, candidates were also narrowed down to two per race. The winners of each primary are listed below:

Superior courts:

• 5th Division, 21A Judicial District: Richard Samuel Gottlieb and Stacey Dawn Rubain will compete in the general election.

District courts:

• 12th District: Rita Cox and Stephen C. Stokes will advance to the general election.
• 14th District: Fred Battaglia, Jr. will challenge incumbent Nancy E. Gordon for her seat in the general election. Henry Pruette will challenge incumbent Doretta Walker for her seat in the general election.
• 19C District: James Randolph and Ted Blanton will face off in the general election.
• 12th District: Valene Franco and Theodore Kazakos will advance to the general election.
• 23rd District: Donna L. Shumate will face Robert Crumpton in the general election.
• 28th District: J. Matthew Martin will challenge incumbent Edwin D. Clontz in the general election.
• 3A District: Faris Dixon will oppose incumbent Lee F. Teague in the general election.

For the full list of general election match-ups, see: North Carolina judicial elections, 2014.

One vote win in Guernsey County Probate/Juvenile Court judicial contest

Ohio:

The unofficial results are in from Ohio's May 6 primary elections, and it looks like there was a very close call in the Democratic primary contest for the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas Probate/Juvenile Division. The two candidates, Andy Warhola and Kent D. Biegler, ran head-to-head in the primary, with Andy Warhola squeaking by with just one extra vote. He came in with 918 votes to Biegler’s 917.

Due to the small margin of victory, this primary result will likely be reviewed by the county board of elections. Pursuant to Ohio elections laws, an automatic recount is conducted if the winning margin is less than one-half percent of the total votes. (1,835 total votes were cast.)

Warhola currently works as an attorney in a solo practice located in Cambridge, Ohio. He received his law license in 1979, moved to Guernsey County in 1980 and has been regularly practicing law in the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas Probate/Juvenile Division since then. Warhola’s judicial philosophy stresses, among other things, his desire to "work with law enforcement, social service agencies and public officials, within the bounds of the law, for the overall benefit of the community." Warhola considers "probation supervision of juvenile offenders to be a privilege, not a right," and hopes to "pursue and maintain programs through the court that will combat teen drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues."

Kent Biegler has served as an assistant prosecuting attorney for Guernsey County for over sixteen years. He has also served as an attorney for Children Services in Guernsey County, working to protect child victims of abuse and neglect for over eight years. According to his Facebook campaign page, Biegler believes that "children need to learn consequences for their actions – and to learn that lesson before they become adults."

The official winner of the Democratic primary faced Republican candidate David B. Bennett in the general election on November 4.

Primary results in Indiana: Upheavals in Clark County

Indiana:

Primary results for Indiana's judicial races have been released. There were upsets in two contests for seats on the Clark County Circuit Court. Incumbents Jerry Jacobi and Daniel Moore were defeated by newcomers Laura A. Harbison and Andrew Adams. Jacobi, who received 43.6% of the vote, to Harbison's 56.4%, is one of a number of defendants in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Plantiffs in the case claim their rights were violated when they were held in jail too long before being placed in the county's drug court program. According to The Courier-Journal, Harbison remarked after learning of her victory that it's not possible to know whether the issues with the drug court program were a deciding factor in the primary election.

In a race for the seat on the Hendricks County Circuit Court, Dan Zielinski came out on top in a five-way Republican primary contest. His opponents were Suzanne X. Conger, Annie Fierek, Mark O'Hara and Eric M. Oliver.

Republican Kelsey B. Hanlon also scored a decisive primary victory over Terry L. English in a contest for the seat on the Owen County Circuit Court, garnering 65.8% of the votes to English's 34.3%.

In the race to serve as judge of the Tippecanoe County Circuit Court, Les A. Meade defeated Earl McCoy in the Republican primary 53.4% to 46.6%.

Todd Corne was victorious over Greg A. Granger in the Warrick County Circuit Court Republican primary contest, winning 54.3% to Granger's 45.7%.

Stay tuned for more election results from Indiana on Judgepedia!

Judicial candidates could have to run twice due to redistricting

Mississippi: The state's filing deadline for judicial candidates was May 9. So far, it appears a majority of incumbents won't face any opposition in their bids for re-election. Jimmy Maxwell, T. Kenneth Griffis and Virginia Carlton are all running unopposed to keep their seats on the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

Hinds County is one of the few exceptions. Three seats on courts in the county are being contested in the 2014 general election. Incumbent Jeff Weill squares off against opponent Ali Shamsiddeen for a seat on the district court. Meanwhile, incumbent William Skinner, and opponents Malcolm O. Harrison and Johnnie McDaniels, will compete for Skinner's seat on the Hinds County Court. A third race, for Houston Patton's seat, also on the county court, has drawn four candidates. Kimberly Campbell, Henry Clay, Bridgett Clayton and LaRita Cooper Stokes will all compete for the seat in November.

The state's supreme court and appeals court judges are elected to eight-year terms. Judges on the state's other courts are elected to four-year terms. However, some judges, elected in 2014, may have to run before their terms expire because state legislators failed to agree on a judicial redistricting plan before the end of their 2014 legislative session. The plans to add some judges and redraw the lines for some districts were supposed to be completed and put into place before the 2014 elections. However, legislators now say they hope to complete those plans by the end of 2015.

Both the house and senate were considering bills to reconfigure judicial districts in early April, before their sessions ended. Adding chancery and circuit court judges was a priority in both bills. The house bill had also called for dividing Madison and Rankin counties into two circuit court districts. Currently both counties are part of the Twentieth Judicial District. The house bill would have created a new 22nd Circuit Court District for Rankin County and provided two judges for the court. There was no option to give those counties their own district courts in the senate's version of the bill.

The chairmen for the house and senate judiciary committees disagreed on what affect the delay in approving a plan could have on judges elected in 2014. According to an article in The Clarion-Ledger, Senate Judiciary, Division A Chairman Briggs Hopson said, because of changes in precincts or districts, "there probably won't be an election until the next scheduled judicial election in 2018." However, House Judiciary A Committee Chairman Mark Baker believed not putting a plan in place before the 2014 elections could make it necessary for some judges to run again in November 2015.

According to state law, legislators don't have to finish their plan to redraw judicial districts until 2015. After that, it will be another ten years before adjustments to the state's judicial districts can be made again.

Alabama draws more national attention over judicial elections

Alabama: Alabama is one of eight states with full-blown partisan elections for every judge, in every court, across the state. Like executive and legislative partisan elections, Alabama's judicial election process has become increasingly expensive and contentious. Since 1993, Alabama Supreme Court candidates have raised around $58 million. Alabama candidates have spent over $30 million since 2002, just in the supreme court and two state appeals courts. California judges, running in a state with nine times the population of Alabama, spent a comparative $230,000 in the same time period, while running for retention. Alabama's most notable campaign was the 2006 state supreme court race, which turned into the second most expensive judicial election in U.S. history.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor called attention to the issue in 2013 and accused the state's judges of letting their rulings become affected by their need to win re-election. She accused judges of using the power of judicial override to become more popular with their electorate. Judicial override is the power of a judge to throw out the sentence of a jury, and replace it with a sentence of their own, after a jury convicts a defendant. Various groups and politicos have made accusations that the harsher sentences handed down by Alabama judges appear to be an attempt to make themselves seem "tough on crime" during election years.

There are many supporters of the partisan election system as well. U.S. appeals court judge Bill Pryor, formerly a state judge in Alabama, said that the system works, although it is not perfect. He and others voiced concerns that the high costs associated with judicial elections in the state could discourage qualified candidates from running. However, he feels the current system allows satisfactory judges to be chosen most of the time. Current Alabama Supreme Court Justice Thomas Woodall said the people are not likely to give up their right to vote. Woodall also said that there are no true nonpartisan elections, and that judges fall along party lines because of their philosophical loyalties. In states like Michigan and North Carolina, judges are selected in nonpartisan elections, but are frequently endorsed or funded by political parties or nominated at party conventions. Some members of the media have called election methods such as this "ostensibly nonpartisan," but they are often engaged by partisan forces. Woodall and Pryor maintained that voters will have more confidence in courts they can keep accountable with elections.

See also

• Judgepedia's Election Central
• 2014 judicial election dates