Judicial races are, by their very nature, challenging for journalists to cover and difficult for voters to evaluate because the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct eliminates a lot of what judges do from the conversation.
Judicial candidates don't have a "D" or and "R" beside their names, as their posts are considered nonpartisan.
What’s The Point?
The use of administrative suspensions of law licenses for late payment of fees as a campaign tactic in judicial races is a disservice to Arkansas voters.
And when it comes to handshaking and asking for votes, candidates for the bench cannot "make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court." Judges or those who would be judges also "in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, (shall not) make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office."
Challengers are fairly limited in what they can say about their opponents, and vice versa. This is even more true when the race involves juvenile court, where many proceedings are shielded from public view to protect the young people at the center of those cases.
Stripped of the issues-oriented races that intensify the campaigns for other offices, judicial races most often boil down to name recognition and resume comparisons. Perhaps that's why in many areas judges who get elected can often count on retiring while still wearing their robes.
In Washington County's race for circuit judge overseeing juvenile cases, incumbent Stacey Zimmerman faces a challenge from attorney Lisa Parks. This newspaper's editorial board has not yet made any endorsement in the race.
This race, however, created unusual headlines recently. Something's going on when a forum involving judicial candidates results in a headline that starts with "Sparks Fly ..."
Parks used email to distribute a claim that Zimmerman's law license had been suspended for nonpayment of her law license fee for a month in 2012 and for about three months for failure to earn enough continuing legal education credits in 2007. What's the big deal? A Faulkner County judge recently ruled such a suspension rendered sitting judges and any candidates similarly situated unqualified to seek or hold a judicial post.
Zimmerman was few weeks late on payments at times. But the more serious legal education claim was false. Parks has said she relied on information from the Arkansas Supreme Court Clerk that turned out to be erroneous when double-checked. Fair enough.
But the court clerk isn't the one who made the decision to use the information, obtained by a political consultant working to get Parks elected, in a way calculated to cause political damage and potentially sway the race.
Another judge has since ruled the procedure for law license suspensions under such circumstances to be unconstitutional. The issue is on its way to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
But let's pretend for a second the information Parks used turned out to be accurate. Does that lay the groundwork for voters to make a decision in this race, or in dozens of other judicial races across Arkansas?
Absolutely not. Whether it's for a sitting judge or a challenger, a missed deadline for payment of an annual license fee is hardly the critical issue -- or even a meaningful issue -- in determining which of these men and women should serve on the bench.
Whoever concocted this manipulative approach, not just in the Parks-Zimmerman race but across the state, really missed the mark and committed a disservice to Arkansas voters.
Commentary on 04/18/2014