JP Election Brief: Primaries galore

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

May 1, 2014

by: State Courts Staff

After a brief lull in April, state court judicial elections are set to shift into high gear in the coming months. Four primary elections will take place in states around the country on May 6. In some states, a primary contest may be the only race a judge must compete in to win their seat. In others, judicial candidates may be eliminated during the primary. Be sure to check out Judgepedia's judicial election pages to find out how judicial elections in your state are conducted. This week we're covering North Carolina's supreme court primary race, and we have information about ratings for candidates in some of the state's other judicial races too. Be sure to check out two articles on some controversial contests set to take place in Indiana. You can also find out more about Ohio's supreme court candidates and learn about an Ohio judicial candidate who's trying to make sure his campaign doesn't break the law.

Important dates: Primary elections: 5/6:Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee Filing deadlines: 5/2: Florida 5/4: Illinois 5/9: Mississippi

Big money, big risk marks North Carolina Supreme Court primary

North Carolina:

The race for Justice Robin Hudson's seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court is the only supreme court race in the state that will include a primary election. That election will be held on May 6, 2014 and its outcome could have big implications.

With two Republican candidates in the primary, voter turnout from that party is expected to be high. The local politics blog Lady Liberty 1885 pointed out that this could even cause Hudson to lose her seat, since only two candidates may advance from the primary. If Republican voters turn out in force to support either of their two candidates--superior court judge Eric Lee Levinson or Jeanette Kathleen Doran--it could counteract Hudson's incumbent advantage. Additionally, a slew of Republican candidates are running in the state's U.S. Senate election, hoping for a chance to face Democratic Senator Kay Hagan in the fall. That race is also expected to encourage more Republican participation in the primary and put Hudson at a disadvantage.

However, the stakes are high for the Democrats, too, as they must win three of the four total races this year to maintain their current minority on the high court. The party hopes to replace the retiring Chief Justice Sarah Parker, who is widely known as a Democrat, with another ally on the court.

The import of this primary is supported by the amount of money flowing into the race already. Businesses such as Reynolds American, Koch Industries and various Blue Cross/Blue Shield groups have helped fund Hudson's opposition. This is not an unusual phenomenon, as there are no spending or fundraising limits on third-party groups in North Carolina, where candidates are limited to $5,000 in contributions, per donor. Therefore, much of the spending is from outside groups. This is the second North Carolina judicial election in a row that has seen increased levels of partisan spending and interest from groups outside North Carolina.

Two groups in particular have used those funds to try to unseat Hudson in the primary. The independent public action committee (PAC) North Carolina Chamber IE had, as of April 30, put $225,000 into TV ads supporting Doran and Levinson. This was partially funded by Koch Industries, which contributed $50,000 to the chamber's PAC this year.

The group Justice for All North Carolina, which received a $650,000 donation from the Republican State Leadership Committee, has aired ads opposing Hudson that accuse her of "not being tough on child molesters." Koch Industries is also a donor to the Republican Committee, giving $359,940 to that organization this year.

The negative ad refers to Hudson's dissenting opinion in State v. Bowditch. Hudson was in the minority on the ruling, which was 4-3. Decided by the court in 2010, the case addressed the issue of a law enacted by the legislature which required convicted sex offenders to wear an ankle monitor which would track their movements, via satellite, even after they've completed their sentence. Three convicted sex-offenders objected to having the law applied in their cases because they were prosecuted before the law took effect. A majority of the court said the law could be applied retroactively. However, Hudson and two others on the court disagreed, finding that applying the law to those who were convicted before the statute was enacted violated their constitutional rights.

Apart from independent groups, the candidates themselves have been gearing up. As of the most recent campaign contributions report on April 19, Hudson boasted $238,172 in total receipts to her campaign. She trailed Levinson, who had raised $263,523. Doran reported $11,536. Altogether, it is the costliest judicial race in the state so far.

For more information, see: North Carolina Supreme Court elections, 2014

North Carolina judicial candidate rankings released for 2014

North Carolina:

The North Carolina Bar Association ranks candidates in the state's judicial races, and the group released its report for the May 6 primary last week. This is the second year the association has done such a survey, the first one having been conducted in 2012.

The association ranked judges in all nine trial court races that have primaries. Eight of the primaries this year are district court races, and the last race is for the Forsyth County Superior Court. There are 32 candidates running in all, four of them incumbents.

More than 2,500 attorneys responded to the survey which asked for evaluations of the candidates in six categories: integrity and impartiality, legal ability, professionalism, communication, administrative skills and overall performance. The categories were rated one through five, with five being the highest.

In the superior court race, three lawyers are running to replace William Z. Wood, Jr., who is vacating his seat. The candidates are: Richard Gottlieb, Stacey Rubain and Donna Taylor. Gottlieb, a partner at Kilpatrick Townsend, received a 4.76, the highest overall score of all the candidates. Taylor, an attorney with Donna Taylor Law, PLLC, had a 2.58, the lowest score overall. Rubain, a partner at Quander Rubain, earned a score of 4.15. View the full survey here.

The North Carolina Bar Association said in a news release that it believes the state is the only one that comprehensively evaluates all trial court candidates. Officials say the survey is meant to help people make decisions in the nonpartisan races.

The primary rankings were preceded earlier this year by a report on the state’s incumbent judges facing re-election. After the primary, the association plans to release survey results for all district and superior court races appearing on the November 4 general election ballot.

Ohio candidate fixes misprinted yard signs

Ohio:

While judicial candidates across Ohio gear up for the May 6 primary election, one Fayette County hopeful is spending his final campaign days going door-to-door but not, as one might suspect, actually knocking.

Steve Eckstein, who is running for Fayette County Probate-Juvenile Judge, is busy repairing a mistake he made in printing his pop-up advertisements and yard signs:

“	The word 'for' should have appeared between my name and the office I'm seeking on my yard signs and print advertisement. I hope no one was misled into thinking I was the incumbent candidate, which they tell me was the problem. I want to let people know what happened and that I fixed it.	”
—Steve Eckstein

The state's election rules dictate that a candidate may not use the term "judge" in his promotional materials unless he is currently a judge, or unless the term appears after the word "for." Eckstein's signs were printed with a line and a star separating his name from the judgeship title, but he was confronted for neglecting to include the word "for" and potentially leading voters to think he is the incumbent candidate.

Eckstein apologized for his error, saying that he thought the line and star made his signs compliant with the rules and that it was never his intention to mislead voters.

“	I'm completely transparent and completely open. When mistakes are made it is best to own up to them. I hope Fayette County appreciates that.	”
—Steve Eckstein

Ohio Supreme Court incumbents boast best fundraising efforts so far

Ohio: Incumbents Judith L. French and Sharon L. Kennedy are both running for re-election to the Ohio Supreme Court in 2014. They'll appear on the Republican primary ballot on May 6. In the meantime, the two candidates are busy raising funds for their campaigns.

According to campaign documents the candidates were required to file in April, French raised $259,509.77 during the first four months of 2014. Her opponent, John P. O'Donnell, raised a little over one-third of that amount. His campaign reported contributions of $89,791.

Incumbent Sharon L. Kennedy reported that her campaign took in $137,295.33 during the first required reporting period for the 2014 elections. Kennedy leads her opponent in fundraising. Tom Letson did not file a report regarding campaign contributions. The report is required when a campaign takes in, or spends, at least $1,000.

These amounts seem fairly low in comparison to the contributions raised by candidates in 2012. That year, all of the candidates running for seats on the supreme court raised a total of close to $3,500,000. However, the candidates will still have seven months between the primary and general elections to continue to raise funds and inform voters about their qualifications.

As with past races, many question how judges on the state's highest court can appear impartial while their campaigns take in funds from individuals, attorneys and groups who may someday appear before them in court. Kennedy for example has received contributions from a variety of organizations and individuals such as: Time Warner Cable Ohio's PAC, the Friends of Ohio Hospitals and an Ohio Farm Bureau PAC. French's report includes contributions from a number of law firms, several insurance company PAC's and the Ohio Oil and Gas Producers Fund, among many others.

Candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court face more strict fundraising requirements than those competing for other elected positions. Campaign committees for supreme court candidates may not begin to seek donations until 120 days before the primary. Candidates must compete in a partisan primary, but then go on to compete in a nonpartisan general election in the fall. Once the primary election is over, candidates may no longer mention their affiliation with a particular political party.

For more information, see: Ohio Supreme Court elections, 2014

Drug court big issue in Indiana's Clark County Circuit Court race

Indiana: In August 2013, Destiny Hoffman was ordered to spend 48 hours in jail. She was then to be evaluated and recommended for treatment as part of the county's drug court treatment program. After slipping through the administrative cracks in the county's system, she ended up spending 5 months in jail. When the mistake was discovered, Hoffman was released and all charges were dropped. The Indiana Supreme Court suspended the Clark County Drug Court program in February, but reinstated it conditionally in March to allow current participants to finish treatment and have their charges dropped.

As of April 2014, Hoffman and 15 other drug court participants are listed as plaintiffs in a federal civil rights lawsuit against Clark County. Most of the plaintiffs say they were held in jail longer than they should have been. There is a long list of defendants in the case, including Judge Jerry Jacobi, who is running for re-election in 2014. The former director of the drug court program is also a defendant, along with the bailiff, sheriff, chief probation office and others.

Jerry Jacobi will face attorney Laura A. Harbison in the Democratic primary on May 6, 2014. Harbison, a political newcomer, says she decided to run for this position before the drug court scandal came out and hit the media. Harbison also says bringing the drug court back into full operation will be one of her main goals, if she wins, along with making sure to correct any misconduct that has allegedly occurred.

“	You have got to have some checks and balances. You got to have a system set up so that if you have someone sitting in jail they are brought up when they need to be brought up. You got be able to manage your staff appropriately and give them clear guidance on what should and shouldn’t happen.	”
—Laura A. Harbison

Although the News and Tribune does not endorse candidates, their editorial board did publish an opinion piece about the matter on April 30, 2014. The article is very critical of Jacobi, saying he had the responsibility to ensure that the drug court was operating appropriately.

Jacobi has worked as a prosecutor and judge in Clark County for 20 years and mentioned in his candidate questionnaire that he hopes voters will look to his experience. In his answers to the questionnaire, he also pointed out that Indiana's criminal code will be changing dramatically in July. "The implementation and understanding of the effects of this change will be of paramount importance," he wrote.

There are no Republicans running in the race, so the primary election on May 6 will decide who wins the seat.

Two Democrats challenge Marion County Superior Court election process

Indiana: With Indiana's May 6 primary fast approaching, two Democratic candidates are running against their party's slated candidates and challenging the method used to elect judges to the Marion County Superior Court. On Monday, Greg Bowes and David R. Hennessy filed a suit in the Marion County Circuit Court seeking to force the Marion County Board of Voter Registration to give them access to the same public voter records that slated candidates are able to access. The information includes telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and home addresses for voters. Bowes and Hennessy are seeking this data to use it in a last-minute effort to reach out to voters.

Judges are elected to the Marion County Superior Court under a unique state law enacted in 2006 with the goal of reducing the influence of political parties in the judicial selection process. Under this system, judicial candidates seeking party nomination pay a fee to their party to cover campaign costs. The Indy Star reports that in the 2014 judicial election, Democrats seeking party endorsement paid $14,000 to their party, and Republican candidates paid at least $12,000. Each party then nominates candidates for half of the open judicial seats in the primary. This judicial selection law ensures that Democrats and Republicans never run against each other in the general election and both parties are represented equally on the bench.

Joel Miller, chairman for the Marion County Democratic Party, argued in favor of the process because it presents voters with thoroughly vetted candidates who are well-qualified to be judges. Hennessy stated that while Miller's statement is true, the party doesn't consider candidates unless they pay the fee. Bowes hopes that by not participating in the party selection process he will demonstrate to voters his independence and impartiality. The Republican primary is much less contested during this election since all the Republican candidates except for one, PJ Dietrick, are incumbents.

Bowes and Hennessy are not the only critics of Marion County's judicial selection process. In 2013, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on the behalf of Common Cause Indiana against Governor Mike Pence, Secretary of State Connie Lawson and the Indiana Election Commission. The suit challenges the constitutionality of limiting the number of seats a party can compete for during an election. The suit also argues that because voters are required to declare a party affiliation to participate in the primary election, the system leaves independent voters with no say in the county's judicial elections. Voters who do vote in the primary are only able to vote for half of the judicial positions on the ballot during an election.

According to court records, state officials have argued that the election law is constitutional and that it, "only imposes reasonable nondiscriminatory restrictions on voting as part of the state's important regulatory interests."

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.

See also

• Judgepedia's Election Central
• 2014 judicial election dates