Partisan judges idea seems headed to ballot

By STEVE BRAWNER

State legislators are no different than other people in that they tend to act in response to recent events. That’s a big reason why a proposed constitutional amendment requiring judicial candidates to declare their political party affiliation is probably the one most likely to go before the voters in November 2026.

House Joint Resolution 1015, sponsored by Rep. Robin Lundstrum, R-Elm Springs, and Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, would require candidates for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, circuit judge or district judge to declare their political party affiliation or independent status, and to have that listed on the ballot. 

HJR 1015 is one of 44 constitutional amendments various legislators have proposed. Lawmakers in the coming weeks will decide which ones to refer to voters, up to three. It has 63 sponsors including Lundstrum and Stubblefield – 46 in the House and 17 in the Senate. In other words, almost half the members of the state Legislature have affixed their names to it. 

As reported by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the state switched to non-partisan judicial elections in 2000 in an effort to create a less political and more independent judiciary.

That’s understandable. A partisan candidate might not be as independent as a nonpartisan one – or at least might not seem to be. Justices and judges sometimes rule in cases that directly affect political parties and party members. Perhaps a Supreme Court composed of nine overtly Republican justices would be less likely to rule against a Republican governor and Republican-dominated Legislature than a nonpartisan one would.

Why the push to switch back? Lundstrum told the Democrat-Gazette that voters know more about the ingredients in a Snickers bar than their judicial candidates. During campaigns, those candidates aren’t supposed to say how they would rule on certain issues that might come before them. They might say they are “conservative,” but that’s about it. Regardless, they usually don’t have the money to run big campaigns to educate the voters about themselves. Party labels are a quick and easy way for voters in the ballot box to know where a candidate might stand on certain issues related to crime, business or social issues such as abortion. 

Lundstrum is also a sponsor on another proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 13, that would allow but not require judicial candidates to declare their allegiance to a political party. But it only has one other sponsor – Rep. Jim Dotson, R-Bentonville.

Lundstrum proposed a similar amendment to HJR 1015 two years ago, but it didn’t make the ballot. In fact, only one did. Voters had rejected all three legislatively proposed amendments the previous election, so legislators were shy about proposing any new ones. The one that made the ballot was a simple, noncontroversial one allowing students to use lottery scholarships at technical schools. It passed easily. Lundstrum was the main sponsor of that one, too.

Why do partisan judicial elections have so much support this time? It probably has a lot to do with what happened this past election cycle. Republicans – who compose four-fifths of the Legislature – won easily in most races where voters knew the candidates’ party allegiances.

But in the nonpartisan Supreme Court chief justice race, voters elected now-Chief Justice Karen Baker over two candidates who were more aligned and associated with the Republican Party. Those were Associate Justice Barbara Webb, the wife of former Republican Party Chairman Doyle Webb, and Associate Justice Rhonda Wood. Baker narrowly led Wood with Webb placing third in the nonpartisan judicial election in May. Campaigning for the two-candidate general election in November, Wood called herself “conservative” and had the support of the state Republican Party and Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. But Baker still won.

Had Lundstrum’s proposed amendment been in effect, Wood and Webb probably would have had “Republican” next to their names on the ballot. And perhaps Baker would have, too, if she had decided it was necessary to get elected.

As stated earlier, lawmakers can only submit three constitutional amendments to the voters, and 44 have been proposed. Some of those amendments’ sponsors will be pushing hard for their ideas. 

However, they’ll be competing with the one that almost half the legislators are already sponsoring. Put your money on that one making it through, and be prepared to vote on it in November 2026. 

Steve Brawner’s column is syndicated to 17 outlets in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com.