3 candidates for Arkansas Supreme Court address high workload

Speaking to an assembly of attorneys -- of the GOP variety -- the questions for three Arkansas Supreme Court candidates Tuesday steered toward a particular point: the workload for those who appear before the court.

All three candidates running for a position on the state's highest court spoke to the Arkansas chapter of the Republican National Lawyers Association at Little Rock's exclusive 1836 Club. It was the first time the trio spoke at the same event since opening their campaigns earlier this year.

The candidates -- the incumbent, Justice Courtney Goodson; Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth Hixson; and Department of Human Services attorney David Sterling -- are all officially nonpartisan. Still, judicial rules allow them to speak at partisan events as long as they do not publicly endorse either party.

The candidates can, however, tailor their language to the audience.

"They might not all be in agreement," Bilenda Harris-Ritter, the organizer of Tuesday's forum, said of the attendees, "but the Republican lawyers that I talk to do not want anyone to legislate from the bench."

Sterling, who once ran in a Republican primary for attorney general, spoke about the "conservatism" of his judicial philosophy. Hixson said the biggest concern he's heard from voters is that the court has become too "political."

Goodson, who spoke the longest, touted her tenure as one of the longest-serving of the seven justices currently on the court, which she said has become efficient at handling its caseload during her time. She is nearing the end of her eight-year term.

"This is not a time to change a member of the court," Goodson said in her pitch.

During a brief question-and-answer session, both questions asked of the candidates had little to do with politics.

First, an assistant solicitor general asked how the candidates felt about the court's abstracting requirement, which basically requires lawyers to make a summary of the relevant material within the lengthy court records submitted in appeals.

Goodson said the requirement is "archaic." Sterling said it added time and costs to an attorney's work, which ends up getting passed on to the client.

Hixson was more favorable to the rule. He said it was helpful in cases where there is a dispute over facts, but less helpful in cases that are about an interpretation of law.

In the second question, Pulaski County prosecutor Melanie Martin asked the candidates to respond to an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article Sunday on the Supreme Court holding fewer oral arguments in recent years.

As an appellate judge, Hixson said he favors holding oral arguments. He told the audience he "has never heard one that was frivolous."

Goodson and Sterling were more measured in their answers. Sterling again spoke of the costs passed on to clients when attorneys have to prepare for oral arguments. Goodson said that while she likes participating in oral arguments as a justice, she weighs such requests on whether it is necessary to reach a just outcome.

"It causes so much delay," she said.

Harris-Ritter said the one issue that most likely united most of the lawyers in the room was opposition to the abstraction requirement, which lawyers see as tedious.

That issue is nonpartisan, said Chris Burks, an attorney who does work for the state Democratic Party. He said he's also opposed to the rule, but that many attorneys who specialize in appellate work support it.

It's unclear yet whether the three candidates will again speak together at a single event before the May 22 judicial general election, which coincides with partisan primaries.

If no candidate candidate earns a majority of the votes, there will be a runoff Nov. 6.

Metro on 04/25/2018

Upcoming Events