JP Election Brief: The "E" word in judicial elections: Ethics

The JP Election Brief
Pulling back the curtain on the drama of judicial elections
In this issue...
Election news from: Tennessee, California, Georgia, Arkansas, Texas and Indiana

April 10, 2014

by: State Courts Staff

Judicial candidates in California and Georgia are busy letting voters know why they're the most qualified. Many races have multiple candidates eager to don a black robe and ensure that justice is served in their communities. Ethics issues have come up in several judicial races recently. Voters expect judges to act with integrity and judicial codes. Many states emphasize the need for judges and judicial candidates to behave in an ethical manner, before and after they are elected. A county in Indiana may have to change their approach to elections to conform with ethics requirements in that state. Meanwhile, one candidate's overdue tax bill has become an issue that could cause voters concern in Tennessee. And candidates in Arkansas are waiting to see if a higher court will overturn a decision that could disqualify them from running for election because they failed to pay their attorney license fees on time.

Important dates: Elections: No primary elections during the month of April. Filing deadlines: 4/11: Oklahoma 4/24: New York

Knox County candidate cited for owing back taxes

Tennessee:

A Knox County Republican candidate for judicial office owes nearly $60,000 in individual income taxes, according to a tax lien levied against her by the federal government.

According to records from the Knox County Register of Deeds office, Patti Jane Lay, who is running for a seat on Division IV of the Sixth Circuit Court, has unpaid taxes for the years 2000 through 2003. Lay owes $11,300 and her husband owes $46,700, for a grand total of $58,000. The federal government filed the lien four years ago.

Lay claims the lien is the result of "a clerical mistake" and that she thought she had cleared up the misunderstanding through an appeal process in 2010. Her brother Edwin Lay, who is a certified public accountant, said in a statement that they had initiated the procedure to "correct the processing error."

Lay currently practices law with her firm, The Law Offices of Patti Jane Lay, in Knoxville, Tennessee. She received her undergraduate degree from Emory University in 1976 and her J.D. from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1979.

Lay is facing fellow Republican, Greg McMillan, in the May primary. The winner will move on to the August general election and face the victor of the Democratic primary between Daniel Kidd and David L. Valone.

Big shoes to fill in Fresno County

California:

Robert H. Oliver has been a judge on the Superior Court of Fresno County since 1998. He is retiring at the end of his current term, which expires in January of 2015. The opening on the court has attracted five candidates and each hopes to convince voters they will be the best choice to follow in the footsteps of the popular, and well-liked, Judge Oliver.

Judge Brad Hill of the California Fifth District Court of Appeal said, "It has never been just a job to [Judge Oliver]. Being a judge is something he feels privileged to do and he feels every case means the world to the folks in the courtroom so he makes sure to do everything he can to ensure justice is served." Oliver has also been the recipient of various awards, including the Foundation Service Award in 2010, which is awarded by The California State University, Fresno Foundation. According to the Fresno State News, this award is given to those who "have achieved a high level of stature in their profession that reflects favorably upon the Fresno community and to those who have demonstrated significant leadership in the goals of the university."

The five candidates for the position are Phillip Jarrett Cline, Lisa M. Gamoian, Rachel Hill, Steven D. Smith, and Charles F. Magill. Cline has worked as a police officer and prosecutor. Gamoian is the chief of homicide at the Fresno County District Attorney's Office. Hill is an attorney and professor at San Joaquin College of Law. Smith has been an administrative law judge for the past five years. Charles Magill and his wife co-founded Magill & Guzman Magill in 2002.

Meet the Yolo County Superior Court candidates

California:

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.

Four candidates are set to face-off for the Department 3 seat on the Yolo County Superior Court in June, the only contested race in the county this year. The four candidates are vying to replace Judge Stephen L. Mock when he retires in January. The Daily Democrat recently highlighted this race and provided background information on each of the candidates. Snapshots of each person are provided below.

Janene Beronio:
Beronio currently serves as a commissioner on the superior court. She stated, "I know this court system better than almost anybody that is still around."

She was, in fact, the court's first commissioner and has served in that role since 1989. Prior to that, she was a deputy district attorney in Yolo County. Beronio stated that good judges should be compassionate, explaining, "You can give a defendant a tough sentence, but if you do it with compassion, then they understand that." Beronio boasts the support of the outgoing judge.

John P. Brennan:
Brennan has been practicing law since 1994. He spent ten years as a deputy district attorney, working with the domestic violence unit and the gang and hate crime unit. He then opened his own law practice. He said his experience gives him a "unique perspective to be the most effective judge for Yolo County."

Fredrick Cohen:
Cohen brings family law experience to the table. The Sacramento-based attorney and family law specialist has practiced law since 1989. Regarding the complicated nature of that practice, he explained, "You need to be able to handle the emotional atmosphere and the intellectual challenges that come with family law." He also pointed out that family law, which often helps protect children early on in their lives, may help prevent future crimes.

Larenda Delaini:
Delaini works as a deputy attorney general and boasts deep ties to the community as a native of West Sacramento. Regarding her decision to run for the judgeship, she said: "I've always just wanted to serve the community and help people." Her primary focus is criminal law. She became a deputy attorney general in 2008 and previously served as a deputy district attorney. She also teaches as an adjunct professor at Sacramento City College.

Tallapoosa judge race draws multiple candidates

Georgia:

The retirement of judge Richard C. Sutton has sparked a four-way contest for his soon-to-be-vacant seat. Sutton, who has served on the Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit for over 14 years, will retire on the eve of his fifteenth year on the court. Sutton has been the only judge to hold the seat since the position was created in 2000. He was a private practice attorney for 32 years prior to his appointment. His possible replacements come from a variety of judicial, public and private law backgrounds. Each contender has experience in both the public and private practice of law, in some capacity.

Candidates qualifying to run include:

• Andrew B. Roper, who serves as a municipal court judge in Cedartown, Georgia. He also owns his own law firm in Cedartown.

• Vickey Robinson Atkins boasts a similar background. She's an attorney in private practice, as well as a municipal court judge in Rockmart, Georgia.

• Charles Morris, a juvenile court judge for both Polk and Haralson counties, also has his own private law practice.

• The fourth candidate, Meng H. Lim is an experienced private attorney, and he also serves as the county attorney in Haralson County.

After judge's eligibility questioned, attorney general's office takes his side

Arkansas:

Assistant state attorney general Colin Jorgensen argued that administratively suspending a law license does not make someone ineligible for a judgeship. We reported in last week’s Election Brief that several judicial candidates could be disqualified from judicial races, after a special judge ruled Valerie Thompson Bailey was ineligible under Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution because her license to practice law in the state was previously suspended. One of those candidates, Judge H.G. Foster, petitioned the state supreme court to declare him eligible.

Foster, a judge for the Arkansas 20th Judicial Circuit in Faulkner County, has had his license suspended periodically (for a total of 216 days since 2009) because he did not pay his dues. His opponent in the Division 5 race, Doralee Chandler, filed a brief asking that the high court dismiss Foster’s petition. In lieu of a dismissal, Chandler requested that she be allowed to become a party in the case or be given the opportunity to file a friend-of-the-court brief. It was Chandler who filed a suit, in the Pulaski County circuit court, to challenge Foster's candidacy in the first place.

Amendment 80 describes requirements to become a judge in the state. It includes a requirement that one must have been a licensed attorney in Arkansas for a minimum of six years to become a circuit court judge.

In Chandler’s suit, she argues that upon his suspension, Foster's status changed from "licensed attorney" to "former attorney," breaking up his six years of practice as an attorney in the state. Foster disagreed.

Jorgensen, responding for the attorney general’s office, stated that when a lawyer fails to pay their state license fees, the lawyer must be suspended from practicing law, but the license itself may remain intact. He recommended that the supreme court not consider such an administrative suspension a disqualification of a lawyer’s judicial candidacy. He cited Rule VII of the Arkansas Rules Governing Admission to the Bar.

If Foster is declared ineligible to run in the May 20 election, he would be equally ineligible for his current seat on the circuit bench.

Upcoming Texas runoff election

Texas: Over a month has passed since the Texas primary on March 4, but many judicial candidates have not yet won a slot for this fall's general election. These candidates may continue campaigning for their party nomination until May 27, when a runoff election will determine who ultimately qualifies to have their name on the November general election ballot.

Whether a candidate is running for state supreme court or justice of the peace, Texas law states that if no candidate wins a clear majority (more than 50 percent) of the vote, a second contest is to be held in which the top two contenders compete against one another. In races populated by more than two candidates, this situation occurs fairly often.

Here are the names of a few judicial candidates who will be competing in this year's primary runoff:

• Austin County Court: Republicans John F. Graham and Tim Lapham
• 45th District Court: Democrats John Bustamante and Laura Flores Macom
• Cherokee County Court at Law: Republicans Janice Crosby Stone and Kelly D. Peacock
• Dallas County Criminal Court No. 5: Democrats Etta Mullin and Lisa Green
• Harris County Justice Court (Precinct 4, Place 2): Republicans Louis Guthrie and Laryssa Korduba

The last day to register to vote in the May 27 runoff is April 28. Find voter information here, or visit Judgepedia's overview of Texas judicial elections to learn more about the election process.

Party politics vs. judicial ethics in Indiana

Indiana: Marion County uses a slating system to select judges for the ballot. The two major political parties, Republican and Democratic, each select half of the candidates who will run for the available seats on the court. Each party holds a slating convention, and votes secretly, to determine which candidates will be selected to fill their party's seats.

Voters used to have more of a say in the process. Delegates who attended the slating convention were elected. The delegates would vote on which candidates to include on a party's ballot during the general election. Recently, fewer people have chosen to run and serve as delegates for their precinct. In precincts not represented by a delegate, the county chairman for the party has the authority to choose a delegate.

According to an Indianapolis Star article, descriptions on the financial disclosure forms of several judicial candidates have caused concerns that the candidates could be in violation of the state's ethics laws for judges and judicial candidates. Democratic and Republican Party groups in Marion County offer judicial candidates the opportunity to be endorsed by their political party. Most candidates are eager to gain a spot on their party's slate since it is seen as a sure way to win a seat on the court. However, according to the article, candidates must pay between $12,000 and $14,000 to be placed on their party's slate. Under Indiana's Code of Judicial Conduct, candidates may make voluntary contributions to political organizations. However, rules under Canon 4 of the code prohibit candidates from paying slate fees.

Marion County election officials note that involving political parties in the election process actually lowers the costs for judicial candidates. In other counties where judges are selected through a more traditional election process, some candidates spent well over $100,000 while campaigning during the 2012 elections. The system in Marion County was created in 2006 as a way to reduce the influence of politics in elections. However, based on the way the system works currently, it appears that the Republican and Democratic parties exercise a significant amount of control over the process of selecting judges in the county.

The Star's article noted several candidates referenced payments they made to political parties as "fees", "payments", "slating fees" or "expenses" -- not donations. Kathryn Dolan, a supreme court spokeswoman, told the Star what candidates choose to call the payments may not be a consideration if any investigations regarding the practice are conducted by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications. She said several aspects of the payments are evaluated by the commission, such as whether they were given before a slating convention, whether the political party said they were expected and whether the amounts from all candidates of a political party were the same.

Becoming a judge in the county under the current system isn't an easy task. Candidates usually begin the work of gaining their party's endorsement long before the election by taking part in party activities and getting to know their party's key players. Candidates must also complete an extensive questionnaire about their background and qualifications. Officials for both parties like the current system and claim it requires candidates to be in touch with the people who will be affected by the decisions the candidates will make in court. In systems where judges are nominated by a commission or a state's governor, only a few people actually have a say in who will be chosen as a judge. Average citizens generally don't have much input into the process. However, many have expressed concerns that Marion county's system places too much of an emphasis on the partisan affiliation of judges. Voters who aren't members of the Republican or Democratic Party also end up without any choice about who serves as a judge in the county.

Some have advocated for changes to be made in the county's judicial selection process. The suggestions range from instituting a merit selection system, where judges are chosen by a nominating commission, to making the current process more transparent. Lawsuits challenging the process are also currently being considered in the state's courts.

See also

• Judgepedia's Election Central
• 2014 judicial election dates