Candidates vie for judgeship

Written by: Doug Davis

MURFREESBORO — The three candidates left standing after the Tennessee Judicial Nominating Commission’s proceedings concluded Friday told The Daily News Journal earlier this week why they are qualified to be the next appointed 16th Judicial District judge. “I have been in practice for 23 years,” said Howard Wilson, 51, of Lascassas. “I have a broader range of experience due to the fact that I have practiced so much longer (than the other two candidates).

He said he also was an administrative law judge for the Tennessee Department of Education for 14 of those years. “I have the proper demeanor to be the judge,” he said, referring to a Rutherford/Cannon County Bar Association poll which gave him high marks. He came in third as highly recommended with 37 votes, 26.8 percent.

Another finalist, M. Keith Siskin picked up 56 votes in the highly recommended category and picked up 40.6 percent of those surveyed to come out on top in the poll.
Siskin, 40, a magistrate in Rutherford County Juvenile Court, spoke of his qualifications Monday afternoon. “I have a well-rounded background. I’ve got eight years of judicial experience,” he said. “From 1998 to 2007, I practiced law. When you combine my judicial experience with the litigation experience, I can see both sides of the courtroom and see how things should be done.”

Siskin was appointed part-time magistrate by Judge Donna Scott Davenport in juvenile court in 2004 and Siskin became full-time magistrate in 2007.
“It has the same powers as judge,” Siskin said. “The only difference is that the (Magistrate’s) decision can be appealed to the judge.

Barnes, 36, touts her judicial experience and experience as an attorney. “The circuit court judges in our district hear both criminal and civil cases and I have experience in both,” Barnes said. “I have also received special training from the National Judicial College, the nation’s leading provider of education for judges,” the Smyrna Municipal Judge said.

Barnes said she hears criminal general sessions cases as part of her duties in Smyrna.

“Which means I conduct preliminary hearings for felony charges,” she continued. “I conduct bench trials for misdemeanor charges and hear violation of probation hearings. I (also) hear municipal code violations and traffic offenses.”

The Smyrna court by special legislation, she explained, has concurrent general sessions jurisdiction for criminal cases. “From what I understand of the other candidates, I am the only applicant that is a sitting judge that hears adult cases,” she said.

Thirteen candidates applied for three finalist slots Friday during a full day of meetings inside the Rutherford County Courthouse in Murfreesboro.
The next step is apparently a background check by the TBI of all three candidates. It is not known when the candidates will be vetted by the governor’s office or before Gov. Bill Haslam himself.

Don Ash has accepted a new position as senior judge and will be vacating his post as circuit court judge, but it appears his initial assignment as senior judge will be in his current position.

TN Supreme Court reverses course on donations by judges to campaigns

Written by

Bobby Allyn and Sarah Kingsbury

In January, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted an overhauled code of conduct that applied to judges across the state, intended to draw a clear line between courts and politics.

But days before the new conflict-of-interest rules were to take effect on July 1, the Court issued a little-noticed order reversing one of its reforms: judges in the state will be allowed to make political contributions — despite being expressly banned in the original, widely-celebrated changes.

Most of the ethics reforms have remained intact, including specific rules about when a judge should step down from a case due to campaign contributions or other activities that may undermine fairness. In addition, judges cannot endorse candidates.
Nonetheless, some legal experts say the change of direction is questionable.

“The better practice is for judges to err on the side of staying out of politics,” said Adam Skaggs, attorney with New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Judges would be well-served to avoid injecting themselves in heated partisan debates.”

At least 27 Tennessee judges have donated to political campaigns this year, according to the Davidson County Election Commission. Nearly all the donations were under $1,000.There were a few exceptions, however.

Out-going General Sessions Judge Mike Jameson gave the largest sum, a $1,400 contribution to his former colleague Phillip North's bid for state Senate. And Judge John McClarty of the Court of Appeals for East Tennessee contributed $1,000 to the re-election campaign of Representative JoAnne Favors of Chattanooga.

The change of course was prompted by letters to the high court from three judges, two from the Knoxville area and one from Lafayette, who disputed the rule.
Among them, Judge David Duggan of the Fifth District argued in his letter to the court that prohibiting donations infringes on judges’ free speech.

“I think judges should self-regulate self-restrict, but I don’t see how making a political contribution impacts my way of hearing a case,” he said in a phone interview.
The court considered the judges’ letters as a petition, which triggered a survey of some 180 judges around the state. Nearly 63 percent of respondents said they favored no limits on campaign contributions beyond those that apply to the public.
The Tennessee Bar Association supported lifting the ban.

“The courts have held that money is speech,” said Allan Ramsaur, who leads the association. Unless there is a compelling reason to override First Amendment rights, he added, donation restrictions “are pretty much frowned upon,” in addition to being vulnerable to legal attacks.

Yet Dick Williams of Common Cause Tennessee, which advocates for government openess, said “it’s a step back from what could have been a significant step forward.”
“Preventing endorsement is meaningless, because a contribution is a de facto endorsement,” Williams said. “It signals that the court bowed to the interest of those who want to contribute.”

Sen. Mae Beavers, a champion of greater judicial transparency, said the state’s recusal reform and other ethics revisions — the first changes to the code in more than two decades — should be applauded.

In other states where judicial donation rules were amended, lawsuits swiftly followed, according to Skaggs of the Brennan Center. There has been no indication that a legal challenge is looming in Tennessee.

Skaggs said some states are trying to harness the momentum around the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which gave corporations and unions the right to contribute to campaigns without limits, to deregulate judicial rules. “If they succeed, it is going to create courts that are staffed with people indistinguishable from other political groups, which would be a great disservice to the public.”