After serial hurricanes and the global financial meltdown, for an election to capture any leftover public attention it had better be historic or crucial. The presidential contest rates, but after that and perhaps the U.S. Senate race, public attention quickly recedes moving on down the election ballot.

   Yet in two parts of the state, elections to the state Supreme Court will make history and a difference of their own.

   Starting with the obvious, if Associate Justice Catherine "Kitty" Kimball wins re-election on Oct. 4, she will become the court's first female chief justice, following the retirement of Chief Justice Pascal Calogero. Yet the honor is not coming peaceably, as Court of Appeal Judge Jeff Hughes is, on scant basis, wildly attacking her ethics and impartiality.

   The other election, though not as historic or histrionic, could be more significant for its impact on the court's philosophical balance.

   The high court that Calogero took over as chief justice in 1990 was considered to be more liberal in its decisions, from criminal justice to civil litigation, than now.

   The tide began turning in the '90s when better organized financial support of candidates by businesses, led by the Louisiana Association of Business & Industry, helped start electing more conservative judges.

   Today, in broad terms, court observers consider only Calogero and Associate Justice Bernette Johnson to be liberals. Three justices--Jeff Victory, Chet Traylor and John Weimar--are seen as conservative. The middle-of-the-road swing votes are Kimball and Jeannette Knoll.

   In the election to replace Calogero, conservatives and business interests see the opportunity to cement a solid conservative majority. LABI has endorsed appellate Judge Greg Guidry, a Republican, whose radio commercials claim he "stood up to greedy trial lawyers." Court of Appeal Judge Jimmy Kuhn, a Republican, is getting plenty of contributions from north shore businesses and lawyers, while appellate Judge Roland Belsome, a Democrat, gets more support from law firms in a race that appears headed for a Nov. 4 runoff.

   The ordinary unincorporated person might well feel queasy about the heavy financial role played in Supreme Court elections by businesses and law firms. For both might later appear before those justices, often against parties who did not chip in to judicial campaign kitties.

   The movement for the merit selection of judges, through a process to assure integrity, competence and diversity among nominees, has gone nowhere in the Legislature and has not caught on with an election-prone public.

   Yet it has surfaced as a campaign issue of sorts in Judge Hughes' challenge to Justice Kimball.

   His television commercials, besides falsely insinuating that Kimball has traveled abroad at taxpayer expense, cites a Tulane Law Review article that concludes that Kimball and other justices tend to vote for the side, whether plaintiff or defendant, that contributed the most to their campaigns. His web site further states, "This 'swing' indicates it is the money, not philosophy, that accounts for her vote."

   Trouble is, the law review article in question has been discredited for its numerous and basic errors of fact and methodology, which led the law school dean to publicly apologize to the Supreme Court.

   Yet that doesn't trouble Hughes enough to pull or modify the commercial. He dismissed the law school dean's apology, saying, "It's blah, blah, blah to me."

   If Hughes is concerned about how money influences elections, he is in the right race, because Kimball holds a 5-1 fundraising advantage, having loaded up on checks from businesses, labor unions and lawyers of all stripes. Citing her even-handedness, LABI has endorsed Democrat Kimball over Republican Hughes, though she often votes against the business side in cases.

   But if Hughes is concerned about how money influences court decisions, he, like the flawed study, misses the point. The real effect of campaign contributions is to help elect candidates who share views with contributors rather than to cause a justice, once elected to a ten-year term, to reshape his or her judicial philosophy on a case-by-case basis in order to follow the money.

   There is an argument worth debating over whether campaign contributions, even elections, should have any role in choosing judges. But trying to smear the good name of a good justice is a dishonorable way to do it.



 

_____________________________________________ _________________Advertisement________________ ______________________________________________