You probably have no earthly idea for whom to favor in the race for the Arkansas Supreme Court between Tim Cullen of Little Rock and Robin Wynne of Fordyce.
Those are but names on a sign on a city bus as far as you're concerned.
You probably had been thinking you'd ask somebody, maybe a lawyer. Or maybe you figured you'd decide when you got in the polling place, which is a heck of a way to install a Supreme Court justice.
You'll likely base that spontaneous selection on the fact that Wynne has "Judge" before his name while Cullen doesn't. That's because Wynne sits on the state Court of Appeals while Cullen is a lifelong practicing lawyer.
That is not to say that being a judge makes one a better judge. Some lawyers tell me the best training for judge is laboring before judges, bad and good.
And there is some irony in your favoring the "judge." If you are as distressed over the sad state of affairs as you say, then why wouldn't you want to throw out the one already a judge and put in the one not?
But now, worst of all, we have the blending of voter ignorance with active business investment in these races to promote tort reform and caps on damages--to buy justice, or injustice.
And we can add to the mix the fallout from the federal Citizens United case. A cynical, shady out-of-state group of no accountability whatsoever muscles into our state to buy television time with unregulated money to make lying smears to try to dictate whom you will select for your Supreme Court justice--to buy your judge for the anonymous outsiders' mysterious interests.
That is happening in this race between Wynne and Cullen--for Wynne and against Cullen.
Some stealth group has bought hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of TV time to say--to lie, to besmirch democracy and the judiciary--that Cullen is soft on child pornography and sees it as a victimless crime.
It's untrue, of course.
Let's examine this assault on fairness and democracy and justice in four points:
First: We don't know who we are dealing with--or, more precisely, who is trying to dictate to us. A large television buy attacking Cullen as a supposed friend of child pornography is paid for by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. That group was begun by the National Rifle Association in 1971 but has been active in judicial races in recent years on a shady basis, seeming to advocate a wide array of conservative objectives--on gun laws and damage caps and tort reform and general right-wing social and economic policy. In West Virginia, the group appeared to be representing the coal industry. As a private advocacy group in the Citizens United era, it can say pretty much what it wants and advertise as much as it wants and protect the identities of bankrollers.
Second: Cullen is innocent, of course. He does criminal-defense work before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. He got appointed by the court to do a brief seeking a reduced sentence--from a sentence exceeding the guidelines--for a child pornography offender. He argued that the sentence ought to be scaled back because, among other reasons, sentences are to be based in part on the abuse of the child victim. In this case, he pointed out, the particular appellant had been communicating unknowingly with an undercover police officer, not an actual victim. Cullen was not arguing that child abuse is victimless. He was saying this specific crime had no specific victim. He was not soft on child pornography, but thorough in his court-ordered assignment to give the man his due legal representation, indeed his constitutional right, indeed a diligent pursuit of justice. The association of criminal-defense lawyers has come to Cullen's defense.
Third: There's no indication why this mystery group would help Wynne by assaulting Cullen. Perhaps that's not the point. The Arkansas Legislative Digest got a request weeks ago from an individual wanting all the legislative records from 1985 to 1987 when Wynne was a state representative. The invoice was sent to someone different from the man calling, and paid by that second person. Conceivably, this mystery group was merely looking for something ripe in either of the candidates' records to exploit to send a message to Arkansas judges. That message: It's that they'd best be conservative or the slander happening to Cullen could well happen to them. It's simple bullying.
Fourth: Most likely Wynne will be elected for one bad reason and one much-worse reason--that he has "judge" before his name, and that some mysterious out-of-state right-wingers have done him the coincidental favor of smearing his opponent for the pure heck of it.
Cullen wanted Wynne to denounce the commercial. Wynne merely disassociated from it rather than denounce it.
Just know that this kind of thing makes a mockery of our elections and our courts.
I have the solution, but it will take time and effort: Appoint our judges. Repeal Citizens United. Impose strict campaign-finance regulations regarding disclosure and spending limits.
In the meantime you can ignore the outrage on television and base your vote for the Supreme Court on a responsible assessment of the two candidates.
You could vote for Cullen to send a message to these cynical snipers, but you shouldn't base your vote solely on that.
If you find the candidates equally qualified otherwise, then, but only then, might you consider the message-sending value of your vote.
I know Robin Wynne a little and like him. But I'd prefer a Supreme Court justice who didn't get his robe by passively riding the coattails of cowardly smear artists.
John Brummett's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at [email protected]. Read his blog at brummett.arkansasonline.com, or his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.
Web only on 05/14/2014