Alabama State Bar

As area's Latino population grows, courts struggle with language barrier
By BRENDAN KIRBY, Mobile Press-Register
February 26, 2007

When Wendy Padilla-Madden worked in the Tuscaloosa County public defender's office, she handled a rape case in which the confession of her Spanish-speaking client was almost thrown out.

There was some question about whether he understood his Miranda rights before giving that confession.

The defendant ended up pleading guilty as part of a deal with prosecutors, according to Padilla-Madden.

But, she said, it illustrated one of the many difficulties that the language barrier causes for English-speaking cops, lawyers and judges who have to deal with the state's small but rapidly growing Hispanic population.

"We've had some animosity from folks who take the position, 'Oh, this is America. Everyone should speak English,'" said Padilla-Madden, who is heading up a committee of the Alabama State Bar Association that aims to improve access to the courts for Latinos. "The reality is they are here. They are trying to learn English. Sometimes that goal is not achieved. They are part of the legal system."

The bar group's first meeting was Friday at the Birmingham offices of Lightfoot, Franklin & White.

Padilla-Madden said the state probably has fewer than 20 lawyers who speak Spanish fluently, and certainly no more than 50. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 4.2 percent of Alabama residents -- some 170,000 people -- speak a language other than English at home, mostly Spanish. But many experts believe official counts vastly understate the true number of Latinos in the state.

A Spanish-language radio station recently began broadcasting in Birmingham, joining ones in other cities like Alabaster and Bessemer.

Padilla-Madden recalled the frustration felt by her colleagues in the Tuscaloosa County public defender's office who represented Latino clients. The office had no interpreters, so attorneys often found themselves communicating through their clients' children as young as 11.

"The poor public defenders had no choice. It was either rely on the kid or not be able to communicate with their clients," she said.

No standards for interpreters

One of the bar committee's chief goals is establishing uniform standards for courtroom interpreters to replace the hodgepodge system that exists today and varies from county to county.

In Baldwin County, for instance, court officials use Spanish speakers to interpret for Latinos who are charged with crimes. But Presiding Circuit Judge James Reid said the court does not demand any certification of those interpreters.

"It's pretty much informal," he said. "So far, over here, it's been OK. We muddle through. It's patchwork."

Mobile lawyer Dom Soto, one of the few Spanish-speaking attorneys in the metro area, said he thinks Baldwin and other counties have a much bigger problem than they believe.

"I think that they're in denial," he said.

Soto noted that the Foley area long has been a magnet for migrant farmers and folks in the hospitality industry, and he said large-scale construction projects like the RSA tower in downtown Mobile have drawn Hispanic laborers to the region.

He criticized the notion that Americans should not accommodate Spanish-speakers.

"The reality is that you have to deal with the issue. You wouldn't say, 'Oh, you're deaf. Our language is oral,'" he said.

Soto, who often volunteers as an interpreter for courts in Mobile on cases where he does not represent a client, said judges often do not know defendants cannot speak English until they arrive in court. He said that ought to be flagged as soon as Spanish speakers get booked into jail.

The problem is even worse in rural areas, where sometimes no one in authority speaks fluent Spanish, Soto said. He recalled representing a migrant worker in Covington County who was accused of murder in 2004. Law enforcement investigators, relying on someone with high school Spanish, had coaxed a confession out of the suspect.

Soto said he laughed when he heard the tape.

"Half of it was gibberish. Half of it was open to interpretation," he said.

Soto's client, Antonio Rivera Hernandez, ended up pleading guilty to hindering prosecution and getting a sentence of time served.

Maria Papp, who has been interpreting in courtrooms for more than two decades and regularly assists the federal court in Mobile, said she has stopped working for state courts amid a dispute over fees. What they pay interpreters is not reasonable, said Papp, who declined to discuss her fees.

Papp, a native of Argentina who moved to the United States in 1964 and later became a citizen, said she is concerned that Alabama lacks uniform standards for people who serve as interpreters.

"Some of the comments I hear from some of the attorneys is that they're dealing with non-qualified interpreters," she said.

Federal courts do have a uniform system governing interpreters. The court must, whenever "reasonably possible" use only interpreters who have been certified by the U.S. Administrative Office of Courts. Jeff Reinert, the chief deputy clerk in the Mobile-based federal court, said the interpreters must be able to provide simultaneous translations, which means they speak the Spanish at the same time the English is spoken and vice versa. He said he often calls on interpreters from New Orleans and elsewhere since Alabama has only one certified interpreter.

For about the last year, the court has had a phone system that allows for long-distance interpretation for non-trial hearings. Full-time interpreters assigned to large federal courts in cities like Miami and Los Angeles translate via telephone for courts like Mobile's that do not have certified bilingual staffers.

With the phone system, an interpreter translates English into Spanish for the defendant through a telephone ear piece and translates testimony from the accused into English for the court.

Since the staff interpreters are federal employees, the government does not incur any extra cost when they serve courts in Mobile and elsewhere. For fiscal year 2006, the federal government spent $19,612 on court interpreters in Mobile when federal employees were not available.

"We certainly bend over backward to accommodate these guys," Reinert said. "That's the big thing over the last few years with the (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts), and that's why they've funded us with the equipment like it has."

English, Spanish and legalese

Scott Vowell, the presiding judge of the Jefferson County Circuit Court, said resource limitations make an exact replica of the federal system unlikely in Alabama courts. But he said he would like to see the state Administrative Office of Courts adopt universal certification standards for interpreters.

Fluency in Spanish and English is not enough, he said, since legalese is almost another language in itself.

"The problem is, in a specialized area like the law, somebody can be very fluent in both English and Spanish and still have difficulty communicating legal terms," he said. "You almost need somebody who is a paralegal or has some legal training."

Padilla-Madden, the Birmingham lawyer, echoed those concerns. She pointed to the Tuscaloosa rape case. She said she thinks she would have trouble making a Spanish-speaking client understand Miranda rights and other legal principles.

"Spanish is my native language, and I'm an attorney. It's not that simple," she said.

Vowell said the Jefferson County Commission hired a bilingual paralegal aid about six months ago who is on call to interpret in the courts as needed. And he said she conducts Spanish classes for judges and other personnel two times a week.

Vowell said he handles workers' compensation cases in Jefferson County and, as a result, sees many Hispanics who have been hurt on the job. Unlike criminal cases, where all defendants are guaranteed a lawyer, workers' comp claimants often have no lawyer, he said.

"So many of these people take our most dangerous jobs, and a lot of them are getting hurt and seeking compensation," he said.

Legal Services Alabama, funded by federal grants, provides legal assistance and referrals to low-income folks throughout the state. The group offers a Spanish-language hotline but has few bilingual staffers for it.

Michael Congiardo, who is serving as vice chairman of the bar committee, works at the call center located in downtown Mobile. He said he is the only Spanish-speaking lawyer in any of the four call centers. Call centers in Birmingham and Montgomery have Spanish-speaking intake screeners, but the one in Huntsville does not, he said.

"There are states that are ahead of us in addressing this issue," said Congiardo, who majored in Spanish at Vanderbilt University and spent a semester in Madrid.

Padilla-Madden said the state bar is interested in hearing not just from lawyers but also from social service organizations and other groups that work with the Latino community.

Michele Prockup, director of Catholic Social Services in Baldwin County, said she was unaware of the bar effort but added that it is a good idea. She said she hopes this year to get a staffer certified by the Board of Immigration Appeals as a paralegal in order to help Hispanics navigate complex immigration laws.

Prockup said some of the Hispanics her group has helped have told horror stories of getting ripped off by people claiming to help them with legal or documentation matters. The Spanish-speakers, not necessarily lawyers, will charge money to serve as advocates.

One person, she said, told her a man had taken a $150 fee to apply for an international driver's license.

"They're just shysters. They take their money and don't deliver the services," she said. "It incenses me when people take advantage of other people because of their language."

- - -

A commission with merit – [Editorial]
The Birmingham News
February 24, 2007

THE ISSUE: A "laboratory" in Minnesota points the way for Alabama to come up with a solution to our ugly, expensive judicial races. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' idea of states as laboratories for "novel social and economic experiments" works on at least a couple of levels.

Each state is in the best position to design public policy based on what it needs and can afford. A one-size-fits-all federal approach may not work for everyone, and what works well in another state might not work at all in Alabama. Besides, Alabama's Kia-like operating budget may not pay for another state's Cadillac program.

But it's also true that what works well in another state can be the starting point for figuring out what will work in Alabama. There's no need to reinvent public policy when 49 other states, not to mention public policy think tanks and interest groups, are cooking up solutions of their own. What works elsewhere can be tweaked - even improved on - to fit Alabama.

We offer the latest example of an experiment that could be successful in Alabama from the laboratory known as the state of Minnesota.

Some background is in order:

Ever since Minnesota became a state in 1858, the vast majority of judges have been appointed to fill vacancies, and then elected to six-year terms without opposition and the designation "incumbent" by their names on the ballot. That began changing several years ago when critics of the Minnesota system won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that opened up judicial elections to outspoken debate and party endorsements.

As the Minneapolis Star-Tribune put it in a news story Feb. 18: "There is a broad bipartisan consensus among policymakers that something has to be done to avoid the intense partisanship, frenetic fundraising, harshly negative TV advertising and special-interest endorsements that are surfacing in judicial elections elsewhere and undermining confidence in courts."

In other words, there is great concern Minnesota judicial elections could become like Alabama judicial elections. Minnesota Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson and former Gov. Al Quie formed what became known as the Quie Commission to study the problem and come up with a solution.

Last week, after a year of study and several public hearings, the Quie Commission recommended a merit selection process for all Minnesota judges. The governor would select judicial appointees from nominees of a selection commission. Once in office, judges would face scrutiny from an evaluation commission chosen by the governor and chief justice that would rate them "qualified" or "not qualified." Those ratings would accompany judges' names on the ballot when they faced voters in retention elections for eight-year terms.

For years, this newspaper's editorial page has recommended a merit selection system for Alabama judicial elections. It doesn't have to be exactly like what Minnesota might adopt, or even like any of the many other states that have some form of merit selection system.

But whatever Alabama comes up with should drain some of the politics and most of the money from the way we choose judges. All it takes to get started is a bill in the state Legislature (also known as a laboratory).

- - -

A legal defense that makes sense – [Editorial]
The Birmingham News
February 21, 2007

THE ISSUE: An effort to improve the legal representation for poor defendants in federal court is a step in the right direction - and a step the state desperately needs to copy.

The idea of ensuring better-quality legal services for poor federal defendants in north Alabama is so good, we wish the state of Alabama would steal it.

Not that the federal courts in Alabama's Northern District, which includes Jefferson and Shelby counties, have settled on the perfect plan to ensure decent legal representation for people who can't afford lawyers. But at least they are moving in the right direction.

Now, the only requirement for lawyers to be appointed to federal defendants here is that they are licensed, in good standing with the bar and sworn-in members of the Northern District. Under a plan that will soon go into effect, lawyers will go through an application process that factors in experience. More experienced lawyers will mentor those who are less seasoned.

This isn't the only way - or necessarily the best way, in our view - to solve the riddle of indigent defense.

Almost every federal district in the country, including both of the other Alabama districts, has a public defender's office. These offices represent poor people and assist lawyers who are appointed to handle cases the defender's office cannot. They typically work well and attract qualified people who develop real expertise in federal defense. For whatever reason, the judges in the Northern District have chosen not to go this route.

Among those who believe a federal defender's office is the preferable option is John Lentine, a defense lawyer who worked on the improvements in the court-appointed system.

"In the long run, it's the best course," he said. "The rest of the country can't be wrong."

He believes, though, that the coming improvements are a first step toward establishing a federal defender's office in the Northern District. "We are on the road to that destination," Lentine said.

Which is more than you can say about the state courts in Alabama, where indigent defense is an even bigger issue than it is in federal courts.

At the state level, indigent defense is provided in a system that lacks oversight and is haphazard, inconsistent and expensive. Even those charged with death-penalty offenses aren't assured a decent defense. An effort to raise the bar - or, God forbid, to establish a real indigent defense system in the state - would require a broad legislative effort that so far isn't happening.

And you should care, because ...?

Because improved lawyering on the front end would save taxpayers the costs of unnecessary retrials. Because the rights of the accused must be protected. Because our Constitution says every defendant is entitled to a lawyer who is up to the job.

In the Northern District, 90 percent of federal defendants are too poor to hire their own lawyer.

Thanks to a plan that will be in force in July, they should have a better shot at getting a lawyer who has the necessary experience to do a good job.

The state of Alabama should at least give defendants in its courts that much.

- - -

Bar Association dues plan sparks debate
By PENNY BROWN, Baton Rouge Advocate
February 26, 2007

Faced with a projected deficit, the Louisiana State Bar Association has doubled mandatory dues for lawyers — only to discover the move might not be exactly legal.

The new annual rate of $80 for lawyers in practice less than three years and $200 for the rest marks the first boost in nearly three decades.

It affects some 20,000 lawyers who are required to pay dues to the bar to practice in Louisiana.

Bar Association President Marta Schnabel said last week the change is prompted by a projected $355,000 deficit in the organization’s $4.2 million budget — a deficit expected to grow over the next five years.

The organization has $2.7 million in reserve, but wants to hang onto that because it can’t get wind or hail insurance for the New Orleans headquarters it bought recently.

“Thirty years ago, we weren’t doing as much as we are now,” Schnabel said. “Because of that — and the fact that $100 then is worth $40.61 today because of inflation — we’ve gotten ourselves into a bit of a corner. We’re not in terrible shape, but we need to be responsible.”

The new dues will bring in about $1.8 million more annually.

Schnabel said money not needed to cover the deficit will be spent offering new programs for its membership, such as upgrading technology to include remote information storage and back-up and online continuing legal education courses.

The bar also wants to open a satellite office in another part of the state. If proposed stricter guidelines for legal advertising are implemented, the organization expects to spend about $200,000 annually on additional employees.

Schnabel said the Louisiana State Bar Association currently has the lowest dues and the smallest staff in proportion to its membership of any such organization in the country.

The Bar Association’s House of Delegates approved the increase 156-33 at a meeting last month. Because of a record-keeping error, however, there is some question as to whether the House of Delegates had the authority to increase dues.

Until 2003, any change in dues had to be approved by the entire membership. That year, the House of Delegates voted to give itself that power — a decision the bar’s full membership later ratified.

The minutes from that session, however, indicate the measure was withdrawn.

Schnabel, who said she may have been the secretary at the time of the mistake, said she is “a bit perplexed” over what to do about what she dubs the “typographical error.”

She said she plans to discuss the issue with the Bar Association’s governing board and may have to put the whole matter before the House of Delegates for another vote when it meets again in June.

Kevin Hayes, a Baton Rouge lawyer who voted against higher dues, said the 2003 measure to change the way bar fees are set was hidden in a resolution waiving fees for members practicing 50 years or more, and should be reconsidered.

He said last week he isn’t opposed to raising dues, but thinks it should be phased in over a three-year period. His proposal — which he said would have covered the deficit but saved lawyers “money the organization doesn’t need right now” — never made it before the House of Delegates.

“Historically, the state bar has not been able to get a dues increase past the general membership,” Hayes said. “For some, it’s a ‘What am I getting for my membership?’ issue. Lawyers have to pay dues, then they’re assessed a disciplinary fee of $165. So there’s some resentment there that we have to pay both those fees when it used to be that dues covered everything.”

But Mike McKay, a Baton Rouge lawyer and former Bar Association president who pushed for the change, said the organization “really needed a dues increase.”

“You’re always going to have some grumbling on something like this — particularly among lawyers, who make their living disagreeing,” McKay said. “But we’ve done everything we possibly can to avoid doing this. The bar really does need to step up to the plate and do good programs; they have in the past and now they have the capability to do more.

“The real tell-tale on the dues increase comes into play in five or 10 years, when we see what the bar did with the money.”

- - -

Courting a new state constitution – [Editorial]
The Birmingham News
February 22, 2007

THE ISSUE: The Circuit Judges Association hops aboard the bandwagon for a new fundamental charter for Alabama. There's still lots of room left, especially for legislators' constituents.

The bandwagon for constitution reform in Alabama can't get too crowded. So there is plenty of room for the Alabama Circuit Judges Association, which recently jumped on board by calling on the governor and Legislature to adopt legislation calling for a citizens convention to rewrite the Alabama Constitution.

"In approving this resolution, the Alabama Circuit Judges have recognized the need to restate the state's constitution, or fundamental law, in order to meet the needs of our state in the 21st century," said Scott Vowell, presiding judge of Jefferson County.

The 1901 Constitution fails in so many ways to meet the state's needs for this century, from its failure to allow self-government for local governments, to its racist language from a bygone era, to its restraints on economic development.

The Circuit Judges Association brings to 31 the number of groups that are working to bring a constitutional convention to Alabama, according to Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform. Those groups include the Baldwin County, Shelby County and Birmingham bar associations, as well as the Alabama State Bar Board of Commissioners.

That is all well and good. Groups that wield any influence at all can help persuade reluctant lawmakers to vote for a bill that would allow Alabama citizens to decide whether they want a citizens convention to write a new document.

But the most important group of all - constituents - hasn't yet signed on in significant numbers.

Last year, ACCR collected petitions signed by more than 65,000 citizens and delivered them to the Legislature. The petitions are an important symbol of a growing grass-roots reform movement, although lawmakers ignored them. Neither the signatures nor the endorsements of influential groups are nearly as important as the views of Joe and Jane Citizen.

Nothing grabs a lawmaker's attention like a constituent stopping him in the local diner or at the ballpark, or taking the time to call him on the phone or drop him a letter or e-mail, or stopping by his office to voice support or opposition to something. A single constituent can get a lawmaker's attention, while a half-dozen causes him concern. Double-digit numbers herald a movement that a lawmaker ignores at his own peril.

Again, endorsements from groups such as the Alabama Circuit Judges Association are important for the constitution reform effort. But a bandwagon filled with Ann from Abbeville and Zeke from Zip City, and everyone in between, will get us there much faster.

- - -

Indigent defense may get upgrade
The Associated Press
February 19, 2007

BIRMINGHAM -- Alabama's largest federal court district is proposing a new way of appointing lawyers for indigent defendants to improve the help they receive in court.

The plan calls for 75 lawyers to be selected by court officials through an application process to serve as attorneys for defendants facing criminal action in the Northern District of Alabama, which includes 31 counties.

The program begins July 1. Its goal is to make sure people who cannot afford to hire lawyers will receive the best possible representation in federal criminal cases, which are becoming increasingly complex, said John Lentine, a Birmingham defense lawyer who is helping lead the overhaul.

U.S. Magistrate T. Michael Putnam said about 90 percent of defendants in criminal cases filed in the district have court-appointed attorneys. "Experience is going to be a larger issue now," Lentine told The Birmingham News in a story Sunday. "The system works better when you have experienced lawyers."

As many as 300 lawyers with various degrees of experience are on an outdated list of lawyers known as the Criminal Justice Act panel. Magistrate judges use the list to choose lawyers, who are paid $92 an hour to represent indigent defendants.

There are no minimum requirements to be on the list other than to be a licensed lawyer in good standing with the bar and sworn in as a member of the federal Northern District.

The selected lawyers now will be divided into two tiers -- one of seasoned lawyers with federal and state court trial experience and another with lawyers who are less experienced. Those lawyers will be mentored by the more skilled ones.

Case assignments will be made at random, except in special circumstances. Lentine said the new plan is one of the most comprehensive in the country's 94 federal court districts.

Under the new plan, lawyers will serve for renewable three-year terms and will have to undergo continuing education courses specifically for federal court.

Federal charges often involve crimes that stretch across state lines, and sentences often carry mandatory minimum prison terms. In federal court, the Speedy Trial Act requires cases typically come to trial more quickly than in state court.

"What we're trying to accomplish in any kind of criminal trial is making sure there has been a correct and fair determination of the facts in the case," Putnam said. "That can only be accomplished if competent, diligent lawyers are working on both sides of the case."

Lentine said court officials will also make an effort to fill the panel with a diverse cross-section of lawyers. Court officials are encouraging lawyers to apply for the panel through the northern district's Web site by May 1.

- - -

Judges want convention
Timesdaily.com
February 19, 2007

The Alabama Circuit Judges Association has approved a resolution calling for legislation creating a constitutional convention to rewrite Alabama's 1901 Constitution.

The resolution says the circuit judges' association call on the governor and Legislature to create a constitutional convention. "The Circuit Judges Association endorses and supports a Constitution which mandates fair and equal protection for all citizens under the law," said the resolution, signed by retired Circuit Judge Harold L. Crow, who is president of the association. The association and several other organizations have endorsed a constitutional convention. In 2006, the Baldwin County, Shelby County and the Birmingham bar associations as well as the Alabama State Bar Board of Commissioners approved resolutions.

"The momentum for a citizens' convention is growing at an amazing rate, as reflected by the recent endorsement of a convention by the Alabama Circuit Judges Association's January Resolution" said Lenora Pate, co-chair of ACCR.

- - -

Top Republicans frustrated with Mo. court system
By DAVID A. LIEB, The Associated Press
February 18, 2007

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri is not often known as a national trendsetter. In most things, the Show-Me-State ranks near the middle of the pack. But in 1940, Missourians adopted a first-of-its kind judicial system. For appellate and urban trial courts, a special selection panel submits three nominees to the governor, who appoints one to the bench. The judges then stand for retention elections.

The intent is to remove partisan politics from the courtroom.

The system is known nationwide as the “Missouri Plan.” Thirty-four other states have adopted some form of merit-based judicial system. Fifteen states have copied Missouri’s judicial selection and retention processes, according to judicial watchdog groups.

Yet some of Missouri’s top Republicans are frustrated with the model. At a meeting of the Missouri chapter of the Republican National Lawyers Association a week ago, there was talk of changing — even doing away — with the Missouri Plan.

Gov. Matt Blunt, U.S. Sen. Kit Bond and Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton — all influential Republicans — each expressed concern about Missouri’s judicial selection process.

“It doesn’t appear to me that the nonpartisan court plan is working very well. It appears to be partisan,” Jetton told the Republican lawyers.

A few minutes later, Blunt picked up the same theme.

“I know there’s great concern with the courts,” the governor said. “I share that concern as somebody who receives the list of potential judges from those panels.”

Some nominees have been to Blunt’s liking, particularly those from the southern part of the state, he said. But some nominees for judicial vacancies in St. Louis and Kansas City haven’t been for candidates he would have preferred.

“I don’t think it’s a very good system,” Blunt said. “It’s a system that would be difficult to change, but I’m certainly willing to consider changes to the system.”

Bond suggested Missouri could consider a system similar to the federal government’s, where the president appoints a judge who must be confirmed by the Senate.

The Republican trio believes the judicial selection commissions are submitting more Democratic nominees than Republicans because the selection panels are dominated by Democrats.

The seven-member Appellate Judicial Commission — which nominates judges for the Supreme Court and three appeals courts — is lead by Chief Justice Michael Wolff, a Democrat. And each of the other six members has contributed money to Democrats.

During the past five years, those six members and their spouses gave at least $36,000 to statewide Democratic candidates, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records. Just one member, Steve Garner of Springfield, also contributed to Republican statewide candidates, but he gave five times as much to Democrats.

Three of the judicial commission members are appointed by governors, and Blunt is about to make his first selection. The other three are attorneys elected by fellow lawyers.

Wolff and former Chief Justice Edward “Chip” Robertson Jr., a Republican, both are defenders of Missouri’s system. Besides serving on the selection commission, both also served in the governor’s office — Wolff for Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan; Robertson for Republican Gov. John Ashcroft.

Frustrated Republicans just need to be patient and remember the past, Robertson said. During Carnahan’s early years as governor, all seven Supreme Court justices were Ashcroft appointees. But as a result of a 12-year run of Democratic governors that ended when Blunt took office in 2005, five of the seven Supreme Court judges now are Democratic appointees.

A similar delayed turnover occurs on the panels that nominate judges for the Supreme Court, court of appeals and the circuit courts in St. Louis city and Clay, Jackson, Platte and St. Louis counties.

As a governor, “You just can’t have you way immediately, and the system is designed to not let you have your way ever,” Robertson said. “The system is designed to say, Let’s have competent people.’”

Even so, Robertson and Wolff said, the nominating panels do consider a governor’s preferences. It’s unlikely a conservative governor would be sent three liberal nominees, for example.

“It’s nonpartisan, but it’s not totally ignorant of who the governor is — you have to take that into account,” Wolff said.

Wolff said he believed all four appointments made by Blunt to the court of appeals had Republican backgrounds. He also ventured that most of the nominees submitted to Bond — who was governor from 1973-1977 and 1981-1985 — were Republicans.

But Bond doesn’t remember it that way.

“I got primarily Democratic nominees,” Bond said in an interview. Although its members have raised concerns, the Republican lawyers group isn’t advocating for any particular change in Missouri’s judicial selection system, said Michael Grote, the vice president of governmental affairs for the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry who recently was elected head of the GOP lawyers group.

A proposed constitutional amendment by Republican Rep. Jim Lembke, of St. Louis, would alter the nonpartisan court plan by requiring Senate confirmation of judicial appointees and imposing an eight-year term limit on them.

To try to ward off such efforts, The Missouri Bar has been running broadcast ads praising Missouri’s nonpartisan court plan.

“It just seems like in the past several years, there has been more threatening talk about changing the system in a way that would make it more political,” said Missouri Bar spokesman Jack Wax.

Yet the Missouri Plan remains well-respected outside the state. “Most observers do believe that the Missouri Plan has been very successful in reducing some of the excesses of partisanship and special interest activity that exists in some of the other systems,” said Jesse Rutledge, a spokesman for the Justice at Stake Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based group that supports an independent judiciary.

Like the grass, however, success sometimes seems more lush from a distance.

- - -

Costly judicial races not healthy for state – [Editorial]
The Montgomery Advertiser
February 11, 2007

Alabama is No. 1 again in a category in which we shouldn't wish to see our state ranked highly. Alabama's chief justice campaign last year was the most expensive judicial race in the country, and the second most expensive in American history.

Sue Bell Cobb, the winner; Drayton Nabers, the incumbent Cobb defeated in November; and Associate Justice Tom Parker, who challenged Nabers in the Republican primary, spent a staggering $7.7 million. Cobb and Nabers spent $6.4 million of that.

This cannot be healthy for the judiciary or for the people of Alabama, who can hardly be faulted for wondering how such huge sums of money might influence their courts. Even the perception that the courts might not be impartial arbiters of the law is deeply damaging.

Alabama needs a serious debate on the way it selects its judges, especially its appellate court judges. Two proposals that will be brought forth this year could provide a strong foundation for this debate.

Chief Justice Cobb says she will push legislation to make judicial races nonpartisan. That certainly would be an improvement over the current structure, in which judicial candidates have to run under party banners even though the law rightly stands above those banners. There is no Republican law or Democratic law, yet judges and candidates find themselves forced into partisan campaigns.

The State Bar is advocating a merit-based appointment process for appellate court judges, after which they would appear on the ballot in retention elections in which the voters would decide whether to keep them on the bench for another term. There is a great deal to recommend this approach.

Limiting contributions - as most other states do - is another topic that deserves a place in the debate.

Scarcely anyone, least of all judges, likes the current system. With the unhappy memories of the 2006 campaign still fresh, this is a fine time to pursue serious reforms.

- - -

State Bar opens annual Law Day poster, essay contest for students
The Birmingham News, ERIC VESALSCO
February 16, 2007

Alabama students in grades K-12 may compete for U.S. Savings Bonds in the Alabama State Bar's annual Law Day poster and essay contest.

Separate poster contests will be open to students in Grades K-3 and 4-6. The theme is "Democracy at work in the Juvenile Court system."

The top three poster contest winners in each of the two age groups will receive savings bonds worth $125, $100 and $75.

Separate essay contests also will be held for students in grades 7-9 and 10-12, under the theme, "Assuring our democracy through the education of our youth."

The top three essay authors in each of the two age groups will win savings bond worth $200, $150 and $100.

"The 2007 Law Day theme prompts us to listen to the voices of young people and consider how the law can better serve their needs and interests," Fournier "Boots" Gale, the state bar president, said. "It also encourages us to assure that our youth are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively make their voices heard within our democracy."

The deadline for submissions is April 16, and the winners will be announced by April 26. Details about the contest and entry forms may be found at www.alabar.org/lawday.

Law Day is a national observance to celebrate the rule of law and how law and the legal process contribute to freedom in the United States. This year marks the 50th anniversary of Law Day, which is May 1.

- - -

Alabama Legal Pioneer Dies in Alaska
WSFA-TV Channel 12, Montgomery

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Feb. 21, 2007 -- Mahala Ashley Dickerson, the first African-American female lawyer to be admitted to the Alabama Bar, died on Monday at her homestead in Wasilla, Alaska following a previous stroke. She was 94.

Prominent Alabama attorney Fred Gray says Dickerson was "before Charles Langford and before me." Dickerson attended the Montgomery Industrial School for Girls, also known as Mrs. White's School, in Montgomery where she developed a lifelong friendship with Rosa Parks.

Mrs. Johnnie Carr tells WSFA.com that she attended the "5th, 6th, and 7th grades" with Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Dickerson. Mrs. Carr says the school was important because there "was not much of an opportunity for black girls to get an education" at the time.

Carr says Mrs. White brought teachers down from the North to teach for nine months and her parents and other parents found out about the school and sent their girls to get an education. Carr says Dickerson lived in a "rural area" and not in the same area of the community. She says the school closed in 1927. Carr remembers Mrs. Dickerson as a lawyer and says she attended community meetings with her before Dickerson left for Indiana.

Mrs. Dickerson's sister, Erna Allen, remained in Montgomery for years - where she passed away, according to Mrs. Carr.

Dickerson wrote a book about her life, "Delayed Justice for Sale," in 1998. In the book Ms. Dickerson outlines her path lifelong love of learning instilled in her by her parents, country schoolteachers.

She graduated from Fisk University in 1935 and then on to the Howard University Law School. She was admitted to the Alabama Bar in 1948 and practice law in Montgomery. Mr. Gray says Dickerson had left Montgomery by the time he returned to the city so he had no dealings with her in her law practice. "She went on to practice law in Indiana and eventually Alaska," says Gray. He did say Dickerson would come to Alabama frequently and he attended a number of programs with her at both the state and national level.

She attended several meetings in recent years of the Alabama Bar Association and was given the Alabama State Bar's Maud McLure Kelly Award in 2006, presented annually to an outstanding female lawyer. Mr. Gray says Mrs. Dickerson's health prevented her from traveling to Alabama on that occasion to receive her award.

Dickerson was Indiana's second black female attorney admitted in 1952 and Alaska's first black attorney, admitted in 1959. She was also the first black president of the National Association of Women Lawyers, 1983-1984.

Dickerson practiced law into her nineties and was considered an advocate for the poor and underprivileged.

In 1984, she told the Anchorage Daily News, "In my life, I didn't have but two things to do. Those were to stay black and to die. I'm just not afraid to fight somebody big...Whenever there's somebody being mistreated, if they want me, I'll help them," she told the Daily News.

According to her Alaska Bar Association profile, Dickerson prosecuted "one of the first equal pay cases on behalf of women university professors who received less pay than their male counterparts."

In 1995, she was awarded the Margaret Brent Award from the American Bar Association, an honor also given to U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor.

One of her sons, John, told WTUU TV, "Kindness, generosity and courage -- I would say the number one would be a courageous, generous woman."

- - -

Justice Kennedy: Yes to Judicial Pay Hikes, No to Cameras at High Court
Tony Mauro, Legal Times
02-15-2007

In a rare appearance Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy made an impassioned plea for increasing judicial salaries and against allowing cameras in the Court.

The failure of Congress to give federal judges meaningful raises in recent years is "threatening the excellence of the judiciary," Kennedy said, adding that the traditional linkage between the salaries of judges and members of Congress "has hurt the judiciary very badly."

The Judiciary Committee says Kennedy's appearance marked the first time "in modern history" that a sitting justice has testified before the committee on legislative matters.

As for cameras in the Court, Kennedy said more than once, "We don't want it!" to the committee, whose ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, introduced a bill last month that would require cameras at Court proceedings. "Please, senator," Kennedy continued, pointedly urging the Senate not to introduce the "insidious temptation" for justices to shape their comments and questions from the bench into catchy sound bites.

Kennedy has made similar points in the past, but his impassioned tone before the senators reached a level he usually reserves for students he lectures about the rule of law. The topic for the hearing was billed as "judicial security and independence," but the two-hour session ranged far and wide in subject matter.

Kennedy said that when the committee first asked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. if a justice could testify, it gave the Court "some pause." But the justices decided it was worth doing. "This is an important time for the judiciary," Kennedy said, making it clear that the salary issue was foremost.

While recognizing "the intangible rewards of public service," Kennedy said the current salaries are undermining the ability to recruit judges from "the finest ranks of the practicing bar." Current pay for federal district court judges is $165,200, appeals judges are paid $175,100, associate justices earn $203,000, and the chief justice gets $212,100 a year. He angrily noted that Supreme Court law clerks often earn more than justices the first year after they leave the Court.

Justice Stephen Breyer, Kennedy said, told him recently that the ability to teach was another intangible benefit of being a federal judge. But Kennedy said that, ironically, judges -- whose pay used to exceed that of professors -- are being lured off the bench into academia. Without mentioning his name, Kennedy cited David Levi, who announced in January that he will be leaving his post as the chief judge of the Eastern District of California to become dean of the Duke University School of Law.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he had already introduced a bill calling for a cost-of-living increase for judges, and he agreed with Kennedy that congressional reluctance to give judges raises without also enacting raises for themselves should end. "The courts should not be held hostage to Congress," Leahy said.

Specter also pledged that legislation to fix the pay situation would pass in this session of Congress.

Specter went on to urge Kennedy -- and through him, the full Court -- to see the wisdom of requiring cameras in the Court, telling the justice that "the court's functions ought to be better understood." But Specter also linked his campaign for cameras with his longstanding grievances about the Court's recent run of overturning acts of Congress. Specter singled out, as he often does, the Court's 2000 decision in United States v. Morrison, in which the Court struck down a part of the Violence Against Women Act. Allowing cameras to broadcast oral arguments, Specter suggested, might help the public comprehend rulings like Morrison.

In his reply, Kennedy, with remarkable frankness, pushed back against Specter's point, telling him that linking the Morrison case with the need for cameras was "a non sequitur . ... It doesn't follow."

Kennedy acknowledged that the Court "probably should do more in the way of teaching" about its workings but said camera access was not the way to do it. With fervor, Kennedy said oral arguments are "a way of using the attorney to have a conversation with ourselves and with the attorney" -- a dynamic that would be ruined by the presence of cameras.

"We are judged by what we write," Kennedy said, not by questioning during oral argument.

Specter seemed taken aback by Kennedy's strong resistance. If Congress did pass his bill, Specter said in a conciliatory tone, "it would be our opinion," which could then be overtaken by "your opinion." Specter did not explain the comment.

On another subject, Specter asked Kennedy to account for the Court's reduced docket of argued cases -- 75 to 80 per term, or roughly half the number it was deciding 20 years ago. Kennedy said he was somewhat mystified himself why the Court was not agreeing to resolve more conflicts between the circuit courts of appeal. But he said the dearth in recent years of new and complex federal statutes -- which often generate multiple cases -- is one possible explanation for the smaller docket. Another, he said, is that "we understand the boundaries of the administrative state," requiring fewer decisions on deference to executive agencies and other administrative law issues.

Kennedy did note that the Court had recently granted review in a batch of new cases, which he said signifies that "we're climbing back" toward a docket closer to 100 cases per term.

- - -

Politics and judicial selection: Nonpartisan is a better way – [Editorial]
Anniston Star, 02-13-2007

A recent poll by the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama that revealed so much about what Alabamians think about spending by lobbyists and PAC-to-PAC transfers — they don’t care much for either — also made it clear that citizens of this state were fed up with how partisan the selection of judges has become. Nearly 75 percent of those polled felt that party labels make the elections too political and more than two-thirds said they would like some form of a nonpartisan process.

The wishes of the people could be met in two ways.

First, do away with party designations and have judicial candidates run in a nonpartisan contest. Some states do this. Of course, citizens willing to do some digging could find out a candidate’s past party association. But that same research could find out the candidate’s judicial philosophy (or lack thereof) and record (or lack thereof) and the one doing the digging would be in a position to cast a much more intelligent ballot.

The second plan, which also is used in some states, has the governor appointing judges from a list of qualified candidates submitted by a nominating commission. After the appointee serves one term, they have to run for re-election.

Those polled liked the nonpartisan plan best. Appointing ran behind partisan elections, but not by that much. Not that any of this matters.

If you think the selection of judges has become politicized, just look at the politics surrounding how selections will be made.

For years all judges were Democrats. So was the Legislature. And the governor. And everybody was happy — except for a few disgruntled Republicans, but they were such a minority that no one paid them much attention. And the least attention the Democrats paid was to changing how judges were selected in Alabama.

Then Republicans began to rise. And in that rise — and with the support of some deep-pocketed special interests — Republicans targeted and won so many judgeships that today there is only one Democrat on the State Supreme Court.

So now Democrats are talking about taking partisanship out of the judicial selection — which they hope will put more Democrats, or at least fewer Republicans, on the courts.

But Republicans, strong enough now to block such a plan, will have none of it. So who cares what the people of Alabama want? Where partisanship matters, partisans will keep it in the process.

And any attempt to change it is dead on arrival.

- - -

Langford crucial to bus boycott – [Editorial]
The Montgomery Advertiser
February 12, 2007

Alabama has lost another of its civil rights pioneers with the death of former state Sen. Charles D. Langford, who as a young attorney was a pivotal figure in the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Langford did not seek re-election to the Alabama Senate in 2002 after serving five terms. Prior to his election to the Senate in 1983, he served in the Alabama House of Representatives for seven years.

During his long legislative tenure, Langford was known as a quiet but effective member of the Legislature. He earned a reputation as a champion of public schools and the state's public colleges while serving as a legislator.

But he was best known as one of the attorneys for Rosa Parks and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the Montgomery Bus Boycott that began in 1955.

Langford assisted another young black lawyer, Fred Gray, in representing Parks during her trial and appeal for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus.

Langford and Gray also represented King and about 90 other Montgomerians when they were accused of violating the state's anti-boycott law.

Langford also was one of the team of attorneys who filed the Browder vs. Gayle lawsuit that ultimately resulted in Montgomery's segregated bus system being declared unconstitutional. The ruling ended the bus boycott after 381 days and served as a major step toward ending racial discrimination in public transportation nationally.

He was honored by his fellow senators when he decided not to seek re-election in 2002. During that ceremony, Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, said of Langford: "We recognize him as one of the most solid persons, always trying to help, never trying to hurt."

Langford received his bachelor's degree from Tennessee State University and a law degree from The Catholic University of America.

At one time, he reportedly was the only practicing black lawyer in Montgomery. He said he returned to his home town to practice law because he saw he was needed here.

"I could see that there were a lot of wrongs being committed, and I wanted to return to right those wrongs," Langford said several years ago when discussing the boycott.

Charles Langford was a consummate gentleman who not only helped to right many of those wrongs, but also to change Montgomery and the nation for the better.

- - -

Costly judicial races not healthy for state – [Editorial]
The Montgomery Advertiser
February 11, 2007

Limiting contributions - as most other states do - is another topic that deserves a place in the debate.

Scarcely anyone, least of all judges, likes the current system. With the unhappy memories of the 2006 campaign still fresh, this is a fine time to pursue serious reforms.

- - -

Ex-justice seeks end to partisan court races - Skyrocketing costs behind Ingram effort
By M.J. Ellington, The Decatur Daily
February 10, 2007

MONTGOMERY — Skyrocketing costs to run for the state’s top court seat are part of the reason one former Alabama Supreme Court justice wants a better way to select judges.

Kenneth F. Ingram, former associate justice of the state’s high court, said when a state has the most expensive court race in the country, as Alabama’s chief justice race was in 2006, maybe voters will wake up to the non-financial costs of such races.

Those include a growing public belief that judges can be bought and a perception that it is hard for the average person to get a fair trial.

Neither perception is correct in most instances, Ingram said he believes.

But he said the expense of judicial races and today’s negative campaign tactics taint a system set up to be impartial and render decisions that reflect the law, not personal or political party opinion.

“I just believe something has to give on this,” Ingram said. “The amount is just unreal,” he said of the costs of the state’s judicial races.

Yearly political campaign finance reports released at the end of January confirmed what election-expense trackers already knew. The $7.3 million that contributors gave to new Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, a Democrat, and former Chief Justice Drayton Nabers, her Republican opponent, made the race the most expensive court contest in the country last year. Nabers received the most contributions in his bid to retain his seat when primary contributions are counted.

The figure does not include third-party sources that conducted campaigns to sway voter opinion toward a particular candidate.

Ingram said Alabama should pick appeals court judges through nonpartisan selection, and establish minimum qualifications based on the needs of the judgeship at different court levels. He said nonpartisan elections and a law that limits the amount of money for each judicial candidate could help.

“If you had qualifications for judges and you had nonpartisan elections, the public would always be the winner,” Ingram said. “People in the state want to elect their judges. If they understood they were still in the process, I believe they would accept it.”

At upper levels of the state court system, Ingram said, qualifications and experience become even more important because there is no jury.

Ingram served six years on the Supreme Court, four years on the Civil Court of Appeals and almost 20 years as a circuit court judge serving Clay, Coosa and Shelby counties.

“At the trial level, it is very easy to see things from a plaintiff point of view or a defendant point of view,” Ingram said. “But when you get to the Supreme Court, the buck stops right there.”

The state’s new chief justice called for judicial election reform before the general election and she advocates nonpartisan elections. Cobb said the high cost of campaigns and the public’s increasing questions about the ethics of the court system are the chief reasons.

Retired Chief Justice Gorman Houston, a Republican, heads an Alabama State Bar group working to develop such a plan. He first supported nonpartisan elections in 1988.

State bar Executive Director Keith Norman said there is some momentum for changing the way the state chooses its judges. He believes a bill to change the selection process will be introduced in the Legislature, but stressed the need for wide support beforehand.

“There is some momentum for it, but there is also dichotomy on the part of voters,” Norman said. “They decry dirty politics, but voters want to elect their judges. The big challenge will be to help voters see they would have a choice with a vote to retain or reject a judge.”

Norman called Ingram “the crucible of elective politics,” citing Ingram’s 1996 Supreme Court re-election campaign against Republican Harold See as “one of the most odious races in history.”

See won the race, but not before political consultants took control of the campaigns with “skunk ads” and middle-of-the-night delivery of anonymous fliers to voters’ homes that changed the course of the election.

That type of campaign is inappropriate in a judicial race,” Norman said. “They are supposed to be impartial. To make them political thwarts objectivity.”

The Bar wants a merit system in which a committee recommends qualified candidates to the governor, who would make the choice. Cobb wants a combination of merit appointment to fill vacancies and nonpartisan elections when appointments expire.

The proposal is a hybrid of the merit-only selection process used in some states and the nonpartisan elections in others.

Nabers said he is comfortable with the state’s current system and believes the state has fine courts elected with the current system.

During the campaign, Skip Tucker, executive director of the conservative group Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse, charged that trial lawyers funded Cobb’s campaign. Her campaign countered with accusations about Nabers’ ties to big business and insurance companies.

Only seven other states have partisan elections for top court races: Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia.

Attempts at nonpartisan judicial elections

MONTGOMERY — Interest in nonpartisan election of judges is not new and has links to Decatur that date to 1952.

--The late John Caddell, a Decatur attorney who was president of the Alabama State Bar in 1952, tried but did not get legislation requiring nonpartisan election of judges that year. Democrats did not like the idea, but the few Republicans he knew were receptive.

--The late U.S. senator and former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice, Howell Heflin, a Democrat, had nonpartisan elections included in the state judicial article introduced before the Legislature during his 1971-77 term as chief justice. The Legislature deleted the measure.

--The Alabama State Bar Board of Bar Commissioners went on record years ago favoring merit selection of judges.

--Rep. Paul DeMarco, R-Homewood, introduced a bill to establish nonpartisan election of judges last year. The bill died in legislative committee.

--More Democrats than Republicans favor nonpartisan judges’ elections. Twenty years ago, the reverse was true.

--Historically the political party with the most power at the moment dislikes nonpartisan judicial elections more than the party with less power.

SOURCES: Alabama State Bar Executive Director Keith Norman, Justice at Stake, Alabama Department of Archives and History

- - -

A Neiman Marcus Supreme Court – [Editorial]
The Birmingham News
Tuesday, February 06, 2007

THE ISSUE: The best way to counter the perception that Alabama's justices are for sale is to do away with electing them.

If justice is for sale in Alabama, the folks who are buying act like they're shopping at Neiman Marcus. Alabama justices, like a Prada handbag from the exclusive, Dallas-based luxury store chain, don't come cheap.

The Alabama chief justice election last year, thanks to an almost $1 million spending spree in the week before the Nov. 7 election, was the most expensive judicial race in the nation and the second most expensive in U.S. history. The three candidates spent $7.7 million, led by then-Chief Justice Drayton Nabers Jr.'s $4.5 million. Democratic winner Sue Bell Cobb raised $2.5 million, while Justice Tom Parker, who lost to Nabers in the Republican Primary, spent just $700,000.

The price tag for all five Alabama Supreme Court races was $12.4 million, tops among the 16 states with high court elections last year, according to Justice at Stake, a Washington, D.C., group that tracks the influence of money on judicial elections.

No wonder Cobb, addressing the annual meeting of the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama last week, said, "The people of Alabama think the courts are for sale, and we don't want that."

About 70 percent of the buying power in last year's races came from political action committees, and their purchases were predictable. Contributions from insurance companies, banks, health-care providers and other businesses fueled the PACs that gave to most Republican court candidates. Plaintiff trial lawyers, gambling interests and the teachers union gave money to PACs that contributed to Democratic candidates.

Even if every justice on the court is completely impartial, the huge special-interest contributions convince many Alabamians the other side can't get a fair shake. Whatever the reality, that perception hurts our court system.

Cobb's solution is to have nonpartisan elections. She will push the Legislature to make judicial races free of party labels, and to subject sitting judges to periodic retention elections. While Cobb's idea is better than the current partisan free-for-alls, an even better one is to do away with judicial elections completely.

With such a system, known as merit selection, a judicial commission would recommend to the governor a group of candidates based on their qualifications. The governor would appoint one to the bench. At the end of the term, voters would decide whether to retain or reject the judge.

A merit selection system, which most states have, would drain some of the politics and the vast majority of money from the way we choose judges. It would also counter the perception that Alabama's courts are for sale. Think of all the savings.

- - -

Campaign ranks among most costly in U.S. - State contests fuel debate over partisan elections
ERIC VELASCO, The Birmingham News
February 04, 2007

A spending spree of almost $1 million the last week of the campaign helped make the Alabama chief justice election the second most expensive judicial race in United States history, a national watchdog group said.

Sue Bell Cobb, the winner; Drayton Nabers Jr.; and Justice Tom Parker spent $7.7 million on the primary and general election. The race was second only to a $9.3 million Illinois Supreme Court race in 2004, according to Justice at Stake, a Washington group that tracks the influence of money on judicial elections.

The final price tag for all five Alabama Supreme Court races was $12.4 million, the most among the 16 states with Supreme Court elections last year. Alabama's chief justice election was the most expensive judicial race in the nation in 2006.

The millions of dollars that pour into Supreme Court campaigns - and the often negative ads they fund - have turned up debate over how Alabama chooses appellate judges.

Cobb plans to push for a bill in the next Legislative session, which begins in March, to make judicial races nonpartisan. The State Bar of Alabama will push to have appellate judges appointed based on merit, then run solo in a retention election after a six-year term.

The debate over judicial selection pits the concepts of a judiciary seen as fair and impartial to all against the people's right to choose their leaders, experts say.

A recent poll in Alabama by Samford University political scientist Randolph Horn showed 75 percent believe partisan judicial elections are too political. In national surveys, a similar percentage say money influences judicial decision making, said Jesse Rutledge of Justice at Stake.

"Already the public is concerned about the conflict of interest between judges and those who give to their campaigns," he said. "Seeing $12 million-plus spent will further damage the image that Alabama courts are fair and impartial."

Proponents of electing judges say the money is necessary.

"Popular elections are expensive," said Michael DeBow, a professor at Cumberland School of Law at Samford. "Candidates have to be able to reach voters, and that's what it takes."

Million-dollar runs

Four Alabama judges spent more than $1 million each on advertising through the campaign, state disclosure forms show. Cobb and Nabers spent $6.4 million between them. Including pre-primary ads by Parker and a national advocacy group, ads in the chief justice race hit $7.7 million.

Nabers spent $4.5 million, more than any other statewide candidate except Gov. Bob Riley and lieutenant governor candidate Luther Strange. Cobb's $2.5 million in expenditures ranked fifth among statewide candidates.

Some 70 percent of the money came from political action committees. Insurance companies, banks, health care providers and other businesses funded the PACs that gave to most Republican court candidates. Plaintiff trial lawyers, gambling interests and the state teachers' union contributed to the PACs that gave to Democratic court hopefuls.

Nabers received $2.8 million and Cobb $1.8 million from PACs. The largest single donation was $500,000 to Cobb from Franklin PAC, which was funded mainly by other PACs, but also plaintiff trial lawyers and the teachers' union. Nabers' largest donation was $475,000 from the pro-business Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, reports show.

Fair shake

Fournier "Boots" Gale, president of the Alabama State Bar, said it's difficult to convince people they will get a fair shake in court when the other side has contributed heavily to the judge's campaign and their side has not.

"I don't think it's true," he said. "But it's the perception."

Decisions by appellate court judges have too great an impact on people's lives to take their selection out of the hands of voters, DeBow said.

"Appellate judges make policy decisions and I think voters are entitled to decide who will do that," he said. "The policy appellate judges make is comparable to those by legislators, and we elect them."

Gale disagrees. "Appellate judges are not supposed to make policy," he said. "They are supposed to interpret laws."

Rutledge, of Justice at Stake, said minor changes such as capping the size of campaign contributions could limit the influence of money on judicial elections.

Alabama is one of 13 states that place no limit on how much money individuals and organizations can give to candidates.

"No caps on contributions furthers the perception that money carries the day in our judicial system," he said.

- - -

State should fund training for judges – [Editorial]
Montgomery Advertiser
February 2, 2007

Private-sector contributions are an important part of many worthwhile undertakings and certainly are not to be belittled. However, some things plainly are the province of the public sector; in short, they should be paid for by the taxpayers.

One of these is the training of the state's judges. Given the crucial role they play in Alabama government, it is decidedly in the state's best interest to see that those who take the bench get the benefit of sound training, such as that offered by the respected National Judicial College. It's an investment in the judiciary -- and in the common good.

Our state, sad to say, has not made that investment in its judges. It should.

That investment vacuum is being filled by a well-intentioned effort of the Alabama State Bar, whose members have been solicited for contributions to pay for judges' training at the National Judicial College. About 100 Alabama judges have not attended the college's general jurisdiction training program, a 10-day program that would be an asset for any jurist.

The failure to invest in judges' training is a serious shortcoming. No new trial court judges have attended the National Judicial College program since 1988, then-Chief Justice Drayton Nabers told the Board of Bar Commissioners last year. The Alabama Judicial College has not operated since 2004.

The State Bar's fund-raising effort, for all its good intentions, nonetheless raises some questions that should concern Alabamians -- and the judges they have elected. Should judges be getting training that is paid for by the lawyers who practice before them? Might this reinforce the perception that the legal community is a cozy club that serves its own purposes?

When the taxpayers pay for these things, such questions are eliminated. The courts exist for the people of Alabama, not for the judges or for the lawyers, and the training of judges should be considered a legitimate -- indeed, a desirable -- public expense. We urge Nabers' successor, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, to seek appropriate public funding for the training of judges.

- - -

Alabama court race most expensive in America in 2006
By PHILLIP RAWLS, Associated Press
February 1, 2007

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Candidates in the race for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court raised $7.3 million in direct contributions, making it the most expensive court race in America in 2006.

It also was the most expensive court race ever in Alabama, a state famous for big-budget judicial campaigns fueled by business interests, which generally back Republican candidates, and plaintiff lawyers, who tend to support Democrats.

The final campaign finance reports brought renewed calls for an end to partisan elections of judges in Alabama, one of seven states that use that method to pick members on their highest court.

"People are just disgusted with the election of Supreme Court justices right now," retired Alabama Supreme Court Justice Gorman Houston, who leads an Alabama State Bar task force seeking an end to partisan elections, said Thursday.

Candidates in the race for chief justice had to file their year-end campaign finance reports Wednesday. Republican incumbent Drayton Nabers, who lost the general election, reported raising $4.1 million since campaign fundraising began in June 2005. Democrat Sue Bell Cobb, who was elected, reported taking in $2.6 million. And Nabers' Republican primary opponent, Justice Tom Parker, reported $641,088.

That totals $7.3 million in direct contributions. Counting their in-kind contributions, such as groups throwing receptions and purchasing advertising on their behalf, the total rises to $7.8 million.

"Any way you slice it, that's the most expensive court race of 2006," said Jesse Rutledge, spokesman for the Justice at Stake Campaign, a Washington-based group that tracks spending in judicial races nationwide.

While the figure is tops for 2006, it is not an all-time record. That still belongs to an Illinois Supreme Court race in 2004, where the candidates raised $9.3 million, Rutledge said.

Prior to the Illinois race, the national record had been the $4.9 million raised in Alabama's 2000 race for chief justice.

"In a state that keeps setting and resetting records, this is another example of how fundraising is a vital part of getting elected to the bench in Alabama," Rutledge said.

Since the early 1990s, Alabama's Supreme Court races have been million-dollar affairs as business interests and plaintiff lawyers sought to elect justices sympathetic to their side on liability or tort law cases.

The 2006 race was somewhat different because Parker, a Republican, drew some plaintiff lawyer support, and Cobb, Alabama's first female chief justice and the only Democrat on the nine-member court, got some business support.

No matter where the money came from, Alabama's big spending increased "the perception that campaign contributions carry influence in the courtroom," Rutledge said.

In an interview Thursday, Cobb called the cost of the campaign "obscene" and predicted it "will be a springboard to change judicial elections." She said a switch to nonpartisan Supreme Court elections would tone down the negative nature of the campaigns and make them less costly.

"We've got to be about increasing people's trust in the courts, not decreasing it," she said.

Nabers said Wednesday the current system of electing judges has produced "a fine judiciary" at both the appellate and trial courts. "I do not advocate any change," he said. The GOP now holds 18 of the 19 seats on Alabama's three appeals courts, and Republican leaders have opposed any change.

The Alabama State Bar is pushing for a merit selection system, where a committee would make recommendations to the governor, who would select one.

Under the both the Bar's plan and Cobb's proposal, voters would decide at the end of a six-year term whether to retain or remove a Supreme Court justice.

Houston said big-budget campaigns funded by law firms or businesses that have cases before the courts are causing people to question the fairness of the judiciary. "We've got to do something," he said.

- - -

Judges’ pay doesn’t match their training – [Editorial]
Tuscaloosa News
January 29, 2007

What’s wrong with this picture?

Alabama has the highest-paid judiciary in the country. Yet state court judges don't have the money to attend training programs. As a consequence, the Alabama Bar is raising money to send the judges to national training programs.

The organization has set a goal of $250,000 in private contributions from its members to allow 90 to 100 state judges who have never attended the National Judicial College training programs an opportunity to go.

The 10-day general jurisdiction-training program lets Alabama judges see how their counterparts in other states address issues. But due to a shortage in state money, Alabama state court judges have been unable to receive substantive judicial training offered but the National Judicial College since 1988.

Further, according to the state bar, the Alabama Judicial College has been shut down since 2004 because of insufficient money.

Yet, thanks in part to a bill that passed the Legislature during Don Siegelman's term as governor, Alabama judges are among the highest paid in the nation, drawing annual salaries that can exceed $180,000. About 90 percent of the state court system’s annual budget goes to salaries.

Whether judges should make that kind of money in a poor state is open to debate. But having highly paid but inadequately trained judges is lunacy. The Alabama bar’s concern is understandable, but state government really should be underwriting the judicial training expenses.

- - -

Former chief justice believes judges should be appointed
By Adam Jones, Tuscaloosa News
February 1, 2007

TUSCALOOSA | Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Drayton Nabers, who fought to keep his seat in what is considered one of the most expensive judicial campaigns in the country, said Tuesday that he does not favor electing judges.

“There is no perfect system for the selection of judges," Nabers told the Tuscaloosa Rotary Club at a lunch meeting. “The rule of law is critical, and elections don’t help the public respect of the judges who keep the rule of law."

Many are calling for the state to change the way judges are selected in Alabama, after campaign costs skyrocketed in the November election. Nabers lost to Democratic challenger Sue Bell Cobb, a race that cost nearly $9 million.

Cobb has called for non-partisan elections, and the president of the Alabama Bar Association told Rotarians earlier this month that judges should be selected by a commission based on merit with the governor having final say.

Nabers’ comment came at the end of his speech to the club, offered only in response to a question by a reporter. His speech to the club focused not on politics but on character, the subject of a book Nabers wrote.

“There is no more important contributor to success than character," he said.

The lunch speech was his first public statement since leaving office earlier this month. He said retirement takes getting used to.

Nabers, 66, wouldn’t rule out the possibility of working again.

“Hopefully, opportunities to serve will come my way again," he said after the meeting.

As for speaking to a civic group -- something he did countless times on the campaign trail -- Nabers said he enjoys it.

“I like to talk when a group wants me to," he said. He stayed to sign copies of his book. Proceeds from the sale of the book benefit the Rotary Club.

- - -