NORMAN — Editor, The Transcript:
When judicial elections heat-up, the rhetoric can dangerously confuse how we judge a person’s qualifications. Yesterday’s mail brought a flyer by one judicial candidate censuring his opponent’s qualifications because of her (apparently successful) representation of defendants charged with serious felonies. I have practiced law in the litigation arena for over 40 years. This type of campaigning should worry anyone who understands the role of trial attorneys in the system. The implication of the flyer is either that no licensed attorney who has engaged in criminal defense representation should later sit on the bench, or at least that an attorney who has successfully represented criminal defendants is not qualified. Either choice relies on a misconception of the American system of justice and its constitutional guarantees. The system requires not only qualified prosecutors, but fully qualified defense counsel and a judge who understands the role of each. The Sixth Amendment guarantees of a fair trial and a defendant’s right to effective representation are central to our system. Surely attorneys who take oaths to fully represent their clients do not ipso facto become disqualified to serve on the bench. During the campaign, we have also been promised that a candidate will bring his conservative values to the bench. A judgeship is not a place for social viewpoints, whether conservative or liberal. Unlike those who serve in the legislative branch, those on the bench should set aside personal ideological views, and make decisions based on the rule of law, and the evidence. Impartiality, fairness and respect for the law are the only important ideologies that should accompany a judgeship.
DON G. HOLLADAY
Norman
