Candidate Responses to Voter Guide Questions
Candidates were asked to provide answers to seven fundamental, nonpartisan questions for this Voter Guide. Candidates were advised that their answers would be limited to 250 words per question. The candidate's answers are re-printed verbatim here up to that word limit.
1. How have your training, professional experience, and interests prepared you to serve on the Alabama Supreme Court?
|
|
Since first arguing a death-penalty case before the Alabama Supreme Court at age 25, my career as a prosecutor has allowed me to engage in appellate advocacy on behalf of crime victims in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In addition, at the local level I have tried numerous felony jury trials, including several capital murder cases. Criminal cases, especially death penalty cases, carry the highest burden of proof in our system. Carrying that high burden, along with the accompanying procedural safeguards, requires a vast amount of knowledge of the rules governing evidence and constitutional criminal procedure. My knowledge of the law comes from personal experience handling a multitude of complex criminal cases at both the trial and appellate levels.
In my current position, I supervise 9 attorneys, 3 law clerks, and 28 support staff. Supervisory experience is necessary to enable a judge to oversee the operation of his/her chambers and judicial staff.
Finally, my experience as a soldier and judge advocate has ingrained in me a devotion to the Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. These values—critical to our military—are what transform a person into a servant-leader. In all aspects of public service we need servant-leadership, but nowhere more so than in our judiciary. |
| 2. What do you consider to be the three most important attributes of a judge? |
|
Humility, long-suffering, and experience.
Humility is important as it is the most significant check and balance against judicial activism. When a jurist believes that he or she is smarter than the elected legislature, executive branch, or general public, it is then that they are tempted to substitute their own judgment for that of the people. At its core, judicial activism is the arrogance of one person substituting their own views for that of the people, from whom all governmental entities derive their power and authority. A humble jurist is one who allows a constitutional statute to stand despite his/her own personal views as to the wisdom or propriety of such a law.
Long-suffering is an important attribute in that those who are quick to anger or judgment deprive themselves of an opportunity to fully consider an issue. A judge should always fully consider the position advanced by any litigant before the court. An impatient temperament is an impediment to the impartial execution of judicial office.
Experience is critical in that those who have never tried cases to juries on a regular basis lack context in which to apply the law to the facts of particular cases. This is especially true when courts are asked to review the actions of a public defender or prosecutor made during the “heat of battle” when split-second decisions are required. Appellate candidates without both trial and appellate advocacy experience lack an important framework for resolving cases with an understanding of the reality of litigation. |
| 3. What is your judicial philosophy? |
|
My judicial philosophy is an unwavering commitment to the doctrine of separation of powers: Namely, that the judicial branch shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them; to the end that we may be a government of laws and not men. The role of the judiciary is to resolve specific cases or controversies between members of society, not to bring about societal change.
Conservative judges will uphold a constitutional law without regard to his/her own views as to the appropriateness of such a law. In state government, Alabamians elect their legislators every four years, unlike judges who are elected to six year terms. This system gives Alabamians the ability to bring about major change in their government, and its laws, every four years.
The people, from whose consent all governmental power is derived, may address “bad laws” or excessive government via the ballot box by electing legislators who will enact “good laws” or repeal unnecessary ones. When judges create law through a “breathing” or “evolving” constitution, however, the governed are subjected to power that they never yielded to the government.
Under our system of government, the vast majority of power should be exercised by the executive branch, as permitted and limited by legislative enactments. The judicial branch should be nearly invisible, except to litigants and in those rare cases where a law or a governmental action has trespassed beyond the limits permitted by the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 or the Constitution of the United States. |
| 4. How do you define “judicial independence,” and how important is it to our judicial system? |
|
I define judicial independence as the end result of a system of government which provides protections against inappropriate influence or pressures on the judicial branch by the executive and/or legislative branches of government. Judicial independence is important in that the judiciary must be able to engage in judicial review of certain executive and legislative acts without fear of reprisals. Further, the judiciary must be prepared to resolve cases and controversies without regard to whom a litigant knows or supports politically. Because Alabama provides for popular elections of judges, the risks of improper influence being applied to a particular judge by legislative or executive officials is somewhat minimized.
In systems of government where judges are appointed, there is often fear that the executive and legislative officials who orchestrate a particular judicial appointment will hold special influence over the appointee. While popular elections do mitigate the risks to judicial independence present in systems where judges are appointed, elections create a risk that judges will be hesitant to make tough and unpopular decisions—no matter how true to the law—because of the potential that such a decision might prevent re-election. (This is addressed in question 6)
Judicial independence is critically important to our judicial system, as it ensures the ability of the judiciary to act as the most powerful check and balance in our system. Because the separation of powers also applies to the executive and legislative branches of government, judicial independence is crucial to maintaining a proper balance in government. |
| 5. What is the greatest area of need in the Alabama justice system, and how should the Alabama Supreme Court respond, if at all? |
|
The greatest need is to address the ever-increasing caseloads throughout Alabama’s judicial system. Criminal, civil, domestic relations and traffic dockets continue to climb at an alarming pace. These increasing dockets place huge demands on circuit clerks’ offices around Alabama, on our public defenders, and on our district attorneys’ offices. The system is failing in that the revenue brought in by filing fees, court costs, and other statutory income sources is insufficient to provide the resources to allow the courts to keep up with demand.
So far, mediation has been the major effort to resolve cases in the civil arena, with drug court and pre-trial diversion programs seeking to reduce caseloads in the criminal justice system. These programs, however, create additional strain as each utilizes additional staff, facilities and equipment to achieve the desired reduction in caseload.
The Supreme Court cannot directly resolve this issue. The Chief Justice, as the administrative head of the Administrative Office of Courts, has the most influence on addressing the needs of the circuit clerks, via control over several funding sources such as the Court Automation Fund and Alacourt.com fees. A review of the appropriateness of the amount of current filing fees is one task the judiciary could undertake for consideration by the legislature. A second alternative would be to encourage the executive branch to engage in aggressive restitution recovery, fine recovery, and court cost recovery efforts, as there is currently $404,000,000.00 in unpaid court costs and fines in Alabama. |
| 6. What part, if any, should public opinion play in the decision of a judge? |
|
Public opinion should play a minimal role, but is necessary in at least one respect. Public opinion is important because judges should realize that all power in a democracy comes from the people, who consent to federal and state government rule through their constitutions and the laws enacted by their legislators. When judges interpret a constitution as a “living, breathing” or “evolving” document in order to recognize previously unrecognized rights or protections, they are substituting their own views and judgment into a document that is supposed to represent the consent of the governed. Whereas it is very difficult for “we the people” to amend our constitution, members of the judicial branch can interpret a constitution in a manner that adds additional rights or protections (without the will or consent of the people) with the stroke of a pen. Thus, like the attribute of humility, public opinion should act as a check and balance against judicial activism.
Although public opinion is a check against judicial activism, there is also a danger created by popular elections that judges will resolve cases and controversies in accordance with what would be “most popular” with the public. The only safeguard against this pressure is the election of conservative judges with well-ingrained values. Candidates who do not possess core values and the traits of a servant-leader are more likely to be interested in judicial retirements, future terms, and other issues wholly unrelated to execution of judicial office. |
| 7. In a case before the Court, how should a judge handle a conflict between his/her personal beliefs and the law? |
|
Judges should apply the law without regard to their personal beliefs. If that is impossible, a judge should recuse from the matter at hand.
The law is an expression of the will of the people as enacted through the legislative branch of government or through a constitution ratified by the people. Accordingly, a judge who would allow their personal beliefs to trump the law would, effectively, be substituting their own judgment for that of the people.
While it is true that the legislature may enact unpopular or controversial laws, so long as those laws are constitutional it is not the role of the judiciary to second-guess the wisdom or public policy of such laws. Instead, it is for the people to determine every four years who will represent them in the legislative and executive branches of state government in the light of the laws that have been passed/enforced (or not passed/enforced) previously.
As a Christian, my faith is of paramount importance. As for me and my house, we have chosen Whom we will serve. Free will, however, allows society to choose for itself how we will live together. Laws that permit conduct that I may consider immoral are laws permitted to exist by society, despite my personal beliefs. I believe it is possible for a Christian to uphold a constitutional statute or ordinance permitting morally objectionable behavior, in that such a decision does not endorse the behavior, but merely concedes that the legislature has chosen to permit such activity. |
|
