Over the last few days I have come to learn a lot about the judicial races this year and the candidates that are running. The result has been seven posts on the most controversial races. It has been a fascinating and illuminating experience.
I have used six primary sources of information, and use the initials after the name in the reference table below:
I have come to respect Caywood and Fields as attorneys who leave partisanship behind in an effort to keep clearly-unqualified candidates off the bench. The Commercial Appeal was less partisan than I expected, and the Democrat Party is stridently partisan far beyond my expectations, endorsing borderline criminals even when they are up against clearly-qualified and fair-minded opponents (a point I plan to post about later, if I get the time — although scrolling through the seven most recent posts will clearly show this to be true).
Here is the full list of positions and candidates. I have a check mark in front of the candidates that I endorse, include a link to a post in which I perform my analysis (if available), and indicate the endorsements by the six sources cited above to help you decide for yourself (assuming you don't like my picks).
I've followed the judicial races and candidates pretty closley. I've practiced for 14 years and have been involved with law enforcement and the criminal courts for almost 25 years. I agree with most of your choices. I still don't think there is a real choice in the Crim. Ct. Div. 1 race, so haven't made any recommendation to my friends and family on that one at all.
I do think that the General Sess. Div. 12 incumbent must go. My vote went to Bryan DAVIS, a tough-nosed prosecutor. I've dealt with all three. The other two are really flashes in the pan. The incumbent is incompetent and the other cannot be taken seriously (too much ambition, too little competence).
I am glad to see you take the time to express your thoughts on these other races.
One thing missing is the retention votes on the Appellate Court judges and Supreme Court Justices. Frankly, if you follow the State Supreme Court at all you would quickly conclude that they are one of the most activist courts in the country. I voted YES on SC Justice Janice HOLDER and NO on the other 2. I also voted YES on Court of Appeals Holly KIRBY, NO on all others. In the Court of Criminal Appeals, YES to Joseph TIPTON and Allen WADE, NO on all others.
Anyway just my thoughts.
Posted by: TAB at July 30, 2006 12:40 AM
I appreciate your comments. It is difficult for those of us outside of the judicial system to really know these candidates and so we must rely on sources such as you, Fields and Caywood.
I agree that there isn't really a good choice in the Crim. Ct. Div. 1 Skahan vs. Saafir race, but I felt I had to pick one because of earlier involvement. So I documented my reasoning in an earlier post in the hopes that some will have the information to make their own informed decision.
As for the Appellate and Supreme Court choices, I covered those in a different post. I admit that I do know that our Supreme Court needs to be replaced, but I do not want Bredesen to be the one replacing anyone who is voted out, so I followed the party ticket. Not a good strategy, but I had no other sources of information. I didn't want to do the random "throw the bums out" thing.
Please stop by again and help keep Memphis voters informed of the realities in our judicial system.
Comments