Tinder Box

"OUCH!"

My ears still hurt from the verbal beatings that I have received regarding the State Bar's Judicial Evaluation Poll. For approximately a quarter century, the State Bar has done these Polls to improve the administration of justice and to help to educate the general public about the candidates for judicial offices.

The State Bar's Board of Governors and the State Bar's Judicial Improvement Committee have always felt that the Judicial Evaluation Poll was an important project in which the State Bar was involved. Since West Virginia is one of only a handful of states which still has partisan political elections for members of the judiciary and since the Judicial Canons of Ethics restrict the types of statements which can be made by the judicial candidates, it has been felt that the Judicial Evaluation Poll is a good process whereby citizens can get the opinions of lawyers, who are officers of the Court, relating to candidates' qualifications for the position.

However, as we know, elections here in West Virginia are personal and they are a contact sport. In addition, there is no way that all 4,000 members of the State Bar are going to agree that a Judicial Evaluation Poll is a beneficial activity in which the State Bar should be involved. During previous Judicial Evaluation Poll cycles, there have been some comments made by State Bar members that were of a negative nature. But, this year, there have been a few more comments and they have been much more strongly stated.

From my perspective, I have always looked upon the Poll as a "no harm, no foul" situation. First of all, the track record has been that candidates who get high scores in the Poll usually lose the election and candidates who get lower ratings are normally the winners.

Secondly, the Poll results are used by the candidates to assist their campaigns. If a candidate gets a higher score, they say, "see, the lawyers are very knowledgeable and they know that I will be a good judge." On the other hand, if a candidate gets a lower rating, they say, "see, the lawyers don't like me because they know I will dispense fair justice and not favor their clients."

We did not start the 2000 Poll process on a positive note - all Marion County attorneys received Wood County ballots and vice versa. The mailing service company just made a mistake and we sent out the proper ballots the next day after we were notified of this error. Then, Mason County becomes a part of a different judicial circuit on January 1, 2001 and the Mason County attorneys received the wrong Circuit Court ballots. Again, that mistake was corrected the next day after it was brought to our attention by Mason County attorneys.

In addition, there were some other problems with ballots in Marshall County, Raleigh County and a couple of other locations. However, all of these situations were rectified immediately and none of them could have an impact on the Poll results because the voting procedures do not permit a State Bar member to vote more than one time.

So, the Poll was done. 34% - a high response rate - of State Bar members participated in the Poll and the results were distributed, without any editorial comment, to all newspapers, radio and television stations that serve West Virginia. In addition, for the first time ever, the results were immediately placed on the State Bar's homepage - www.wvbar.org.

Then, as they say, it hit the fan. We started to get calls from judicial candidates and/or their supporters who had the following problems with the results of the Judicial Evaluation Poll:

1. The local newspaper did not include a particular candidate's ratings in its news story (I'm sorry, but we do not have the ability to tell the news media what they should print or report.)

2. This a political activity and the State Bar, as a mandatory organization, should not do it. (Judicial Evaluation Polls have been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and are done by many other State Bar organizations.)

3. All the attorneys in one type of practice group vote against a candidate who is perceived to be from a different type of legal practice. (We don't know if that is true because of the secret ballot process and there is nothing that can be done about it, if it would be true.)

4. The Judicial Evaluation ballot was not received by the attorney. (We mail the ballots to the mailing addresses which our State Bar members provide to us.)

5. There is only a small number of State Bar members in a Judicial Circuit and they deliberately voted against a candidate. (State Bar members are only supposed to vote for those candidates where they have personal knowledge or after appropriate investigation - we hope that each State Bar member participates in an honest and truthful manner.)

I believe that the Judicial Evaluation Poll is a valuable service that we provide for State Bar members and to the general public. From the comments I have received, it is my sense that the vast majority of State Bar members have that same opinion. Nevertheless, if that is a wrong impression, I hope that State Bar members will either notify me or talk with State Bar Officers and members of the Board of Governors.

Finally, I must make one very strong statement about one situation that occurred a few times during the Judicial Evaluation Poll process in March and April. There were some small number of State Bar members who were very upset about the Judicial Evaluation Poll and its results and they communicated them to us here at the State Bar Center. I do not have any problem with any State Bar member expressing their opinions in the most vigorous way that they desire. However, I do have a major problem when it done harshly and personally with State Bar staff members other than me.

So, I am saying in the firmest way that I can, that if you ever have a problem or concern with what the State Bar is doing or not doing, please make those comments directly to me. You may do it in as hateful, vile or slanderous way that you desire - I may not like it, but I assure you that I will listen to your concerns, explain what has occurred and make any changes or corrections which need to be done. This is my job responsibility - that is my duty. That is not the responsibility or the duty of any other State Bar staff member.

I look forward to hearing from any State Bar members at anytime by phone (558-7993) by e-mail (tindert@wvbar.org), by fax (558-2467) or by regular mail (West Virginia State Bar, 2006 Kanawha Boulevard, East, Charleston, West Virginia 25311.) I promise you that I will immediately respond to whatever matters you bring to my personal attention.

By the way, I am writing this article at the end of April and do not know the results of the judicial elections which will occur at the May 9 primary election. We will keep the Judicial Evaluation Poll results on our homepage - (www.wvbar.org) for 30 days or longer after the election. Let's compare the ratings given to the candidates on the Judicial Evaluation Poll with the results of the primary election.