Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor:

I read with interest the Charleston Gazette's 6-13-00 article concerning campaign contributions received by Supreme Court candidate Evan Jenkins. I was surprised to learn that Mr. Jenkins received twice as much campaign money that Joe Albright and Bob Bastress combined. His contributions topped out at about $70,000, while Mr. Albright and Mr. Bastress received about $30,000 combined.

I was not surprised, however, to learn that most of Mr. Jenkins money came from coal executives, business interests, doctors, corporate attorneys and their families. These contributors rightfully believed that Mr. Jenkins would have protected their interests of he were elected to the Supreme Court. They have every right to contribute heavily to his campaign and to expect him to be a Judge who would uphold a conservative or so-called pro-business philosophy.

There is no shame in Mr. Jenkins raising the kind of money he raised, nor is there shame in the fact that the money came from people who believed he best represented their interests. However, this raises a question: Why is it that many of these same people are critics of campaign contributions to pro-consumer or so-called "liberal" judges? This to me seems inconsistent.

I am puzzled everytime I read an article by some member of the Chamber of Commerce or Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse criticizing judicial contributions made by unions, trial attorneys or consumer protection groups to "liberal" judges, while at the same time these critics are conspicuously silent when far greater amounts of money are poured into campaigns such as that of Mr. Jenkins. Is this so-called "influence buying" any less offensive to the conservative critics when it involves candidates like Mr. Jenkins?

It seems to me that most of the criticism of judicial elections from the Chamber of Commerce and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse is nothing more than a bad case of sour grapes. Since they cannot get their candidates elected by pouring huge amounts of cash into campaigns, they cry foul, or suggest that judges should be appointed rather than elected.

It is very easy to see that the conservative establishment that contributed $70,000 to the campaign of Mr. Jenkins would benefit greatly by taking the choice of judges away from the people putting it into the hands of a few select "elites" who supposedly know better than all of us commoners. For anyone who thinks that this would be a less political process, I have a bridge I would like to sell you in Brooklyn.

Very truly yours,
Christopher J. Heavens


Dear Editor:

I read Allison Bailey's recent article on Justice George Scott and, although I am sure Justice Scott is a fine man, he expressed a view I find disturbing. Justice Scott, like so many from the conservative business-friendly segment of our society, chose this occasion to advocate "an appointed judiciary." Elected judges are beholding–how did Justice Scott put it–"to the little people" in favor of Judge-selection placed in the hands of a small group of gubernatorial appointees who will decide "who is the best man (or woman?) for the job.

Something is very incongruent in Justice Scott's proposal: We take away the right to vote of "the little people" and place it in the hands of the single most powerful political person in the State, the Governor, because we fear political influence in the selection process!? This reminds me of the "scorched earth" policy of the U.S. Military in Vietnam—"we'll make them free if we have to kill them!"

The Governor is beholden to the huge corporations, coal companies, businesses or labor unions that financed and backed his election. These same groups provide the man-power through the "revolving door" that implement the Governor's policy once he is in power. Does anyone seriously believe that a Governor-selected judiciary would be free of political influence? If you search the records of gubernatorial appointees, you will find more than a few with political connections, dubious experience and qualifications, and a large number whose singular qualification for the position is loyalty and support of the person residing in the Governor's Mansion. Cronyism is appointees is a way of life in political circles. Appointed Judges simply would expand the opportunity for such cronyism.

We trust "the little people" to choose the man or woman who has the ability to case humankind into "nuclear winter." We trust "the little people" to choose the men and women who decide to send America's children and young people into combat.

We trust "the little people" to choose the men and women who will decide the nation's policy on medical care, water and air quality, educational standards, and racial policies. But, in Justice Scott's view, we cannot trust these same "little people" to select the man or woman who will decide whether a police officer can give an opinion about which driver was at fault for an intersection collision in which one party claims a neck sprain.

Most of what a Judge does has little or nothing to do with polarizing battles raging between business and labor, plaintiffs and defendants. Most Judges spend their days dealing with criminal cases, juvenile proceedings, domestic relations issues and court administration. What concerns Dow Chemical or Consolidation Coal Company or the AFL/CIO is rarely an issue that requires the attention of Circuit Judges. They constantly deal with the life and death struggles of "the little people"—a teenager charged with a drug offense, the battered wife, the abused children, or the boundary dispute. The "little people" are usually on both sides of these cases and, for every one of the Judge pleases, the Judge's decision offends the other. That is the nature of being a Judge. And, from my perspective in trying cases and appearing in Courts for 17 years, elected Judges are doing a commendable job in dispensing justice fairly, impartially and competently in courtrooms throughout the State of West Virginia.

Democracy is a messy business. But we need more of it–not less of it. Big, unruly elections, decided by hundreds of thousands of voters, are impossible to fix. A small cadre of gubernatorial selectors, acting in secret, is more susceptible to corrupting influences than an election could ever be. Does the conservative, business-friendly segment of our society want Charlotte Pritt appointing Circuit Judges? Well...neither do I want Cecil Underwood in charge of selecting justices in this State.

It is better the choice be left to the "little people." Give them better information on the candidates' qualifications and background and no segment of our society has better judgement that "the little people." I need not remind Justice Scott that the "little people" do most of the working, fighting and dying in this country—they also should do the "choosing" of who will stand in judgement over them.

I have been in practice seventeen years now. Boy, has it flown by! I have practiced before scores of Judges at all levels. I have been impressed by their collective diligence; their wit; and their sense of fair play. I have encountered the rare tyrant. True, I have seen the even rarer dilatory "boob." The "little people" have seen them, too, and they are turned out of office in due course. The System works. Democracy is the best check on tyranny and injustice. Democracy rightfully trusts the judgement, wisdom and principles of all those many "little people" Justice Scott seems to fear.

The many competent men and women currently serving as elected Judges in this State provide irrefutable proof of the wisdom of the current System. Don't degrade these Judges by suggesting they are inferior sycophants of the "little people" who need to be replaced by the Governor's hand-picked appointees. They prove their worth and competency every day throughout the courtrooms of the State.

Sincerely,
William Flanigan