By By Sid Salter / guest columnist
July 17, 2002
Do you support or oppose the death penalty? Does the state's civil justice system need to be reformed or is it working just perfectly to protect the rights of individuals against corporate or professional misconduct? Folks want to know.
Maximum jail time or minimum jail time for non-violent offenders? Hard time for drug criminals or is drug treatment more appropriate? How about it?
There are any number of substantive questions regarding a candidate's judicial philosophies that should be asked of judicial candidates. Until recently, judicial candidates in Mississippi could make the rather pious argument that they were blocked by the state's Code of Judicial Conduct from answering such questions.
Policy questions are legal
But that dodge isn't available any longer. On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed the rules for state judicial elections across the country. The high court ruled 5-4 in Republican Party of Minnesota V. White that states can no longer restrict candidates from expressing opinions on general judicial issues likely to come before the courts.
Prior to the decision, the state Code of Judicial Conduct barred candidates from answering questions on issues likely to come before the court. The U.S. Supreme Court now holds such restrictions unconstitutional. The court says it may be okay to prohibit a candidate from pledging how he would rule in specific cases if elected, but that candidates cannot be barred from speaking to general legal issues and concepts.
With the state this week focused on the first execution of a death row inmate in more than 11 years, it is important to note that the state is in the middle of a judicial election cycle.
The execution of Florida career criminal Tracy Alan Hansen for the Aug. 10, 1987 slaying of state Trooper David Bruce Ladner marks the first time since 1989 that Mississippi has actually enforced the death penalty. Prior to the high court decision in the Minnesota case, judicial candidates could and routinely did dodge tough questions on matters of public policy citing the judicial code prohibitions.
And since the state Supreme Court an elective body in Mississippi and some 30 other states controls the construction of the Code of Judicial Conduct, there is still room for political mischief.
But it is important that Mississippi citizens hold the feet of judicial candidates to the fire in terms of the Code of Judicial Conduct in this election cycle. Those judges who decline to answer appropriate questions by hiding behind the political skirts of the Code of Judicial Conduct should be held accountable.
TV spots could get nasty
The most volatile arena in the wake of the high court ruling in the Minnesota case is that of television advertising in the state's Supreme Court and Court of Appeals race. Those contests are expected to be hotly contested between candidates backed by the state's powerful trial lawyer lobby and opponents backed by the state's business and medical professional community.
But armed with the ruling in the Minnesota case, citizens no longer have to sit quietly and elect judges from a pool of candidates who won't make their positions on key issues like the death penalty, tort reform and other bedrock issues. It's time to ask hard questions.
Five of the state's 66 Death Row inmates have been incarcerated more than 20 years now awaiting execution two more than 25 years. The state's judicial system should be accountable to the voters for that inertia. Judges seeking votes should expect to be asked about it and voters should expect some straight answers.
That's as it should be.