Good Call?

Tough call (4.00 / 1)

On the one hand we have the presumption of innocence and the fact that voters picked Ms. Marshall back in July.  Those shouldn't be dismissed lightly.  On the other, there's the fact that Ms. Marshall isn't qualified to serve in the office she's seeking without a valid law license.

My own feeling is that indicted candidates should step aside -- but they never do! -- and although this isn't an indictment the suspension does arise from a serious charge of improper and unethical behavior.   A party rule about indictments would open the door to all kinds of frivolous charges driven by a desire to get someone off the ballot -- so that's only workable if there are safeguards with teeth against such bad behavior.  Unlikely to happen here soon, I know, so they party will continue to evaluate these things case by case.

Back to your questions. 

The move to replace Marshall will undoubtedly be viewed as racist by some, just because one person is black and the other is white.  Based on what we've heard so far I wouldn't make that charge -- the accusations of wrongdoing are pretty specific and, if true, aren't the sort of thing the Democratic party needs to be associated with.

Innocent until proven guilty is important.  So is vetting candidates and making sure they're qualified to serve.  Something that isn't in the news stories is the answer to this: Is there any likelihood her law license will be reinstated before the nominees must be certified (about 2 weeks), before the election, or before she would take office?  If the answer is no to all those, then I think they have to remove her or she will be elected but unable to serve.  Not fair to the citizenry and a big black eye for the party.

I'd like to know more about the situation -- who filed the complaint, when it is likely to be resolved and so forth -- to make a call.  Unfortunately, the SDEC members who will decide this matter probably won't have any more information than what is available to us in news reports. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 14:13:53 PM UTC

the complaint was initiated by a lawsuit against her client (4.00 / 1)

the client was sued for not paying medical liens.

so in the client's answer to the civil suit they responded that the attorney, Marshall, embezzled the funds from her trust account.

so I'm sure a copy was sent to the bar who took action. so it came from an interaction with a  client.

There is no guarantee that the second place finisher and incumbent will take the place of Marshall. It should get interesting. I was planning on going down but the rain and work getting in the way.  

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 14:34:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Possible compromise (0.00 / 0)

... that neutralizes the racial aspect out of this dilemma is if they take Marshall off the ballot but name a replacement who is also black.  Of course, that looks even more like spitting in the eye of voters and handpicking a candidate.  In this case a candidate who is unopposed in the general, so it amounts to handpicking a judge.

What are the consequences of no action?  If Ms. Marshall stays on the ballot, is elected but is unable to serve because her law license is suspended, what happens?  Would that force a special election to fill the seat?  Because wait and see gives her a chance to clear away the accusation.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 14:41:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why should the state democratic Executive committe decide? (0.00 / 0)

why should party insiders in Montgomery, Huntsville, Mobile and places in-between and nowhere in-between decide who the Judge is in Jefferson County?

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 19:27:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could you post your cites? (4.00 / 1)

Even if Ms. Marshall is cleared, there will be much information and/or misinformation left in the minds of voters and for future opponents to dredge up from media reports and online blogs and discussions, much like this one.  (So be careful what you write.)  However, having more of the information about the hows and whys of the situation might sway opinion, both public and SDEC.  Who was the client?  Who sued the client?  Where is the trust account held?  Who are all the players?  What are their motives?  Where did you find this information?

---

by: The Gaelic Wife @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 17:26:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scratch that. (4.00 / 1)

I didn't see the update by mooncat with a link to an article on the charges before I posted.

---

by: The Gaelic Wife @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 17:57:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The nomination is guranteed to Nikki Still (4.00 / 1)

There are several other candidates here trying to fill the vacancy on the ballot.  Honestly, it seems like Still is not the leading candidate. If I had money to put on it and say it will be Elisabeth French. She has a strong presence here, much stronger than any of the others.

 

Btw, I'll be tweeting the SDEC meeting today. You can follow me at @rockrichard or follow the #ASDEC hash tag.

---

by: Richard Smith @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 14:48:47 PM UTC

*isn't guranteed to Nikki Still, that is. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Richard Smith @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 14:49:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

French has it sewn up (0.00 / 0)

done deal.  

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 14:52:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well apparently this one is tabled for two weeks (0.00 / 0)

now let the fun and games begin.  

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 19:24:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shoulda Sold Tickets (4.00 / 2)

Impassioned speeches from both sides, a speech from Joe Reed that was met with boos and hisses until the Chair gavelled the committee into order...oh it was a show.

The "compromise" was offered by Dr. Reed after he saw that his original plan (to call for upholding the subcommittee's recommendation) was not getting support even  from his usual constituency.

What has NOT been widely discussed is the fact that Ms. Marshall still holds a license in LA that has NOT been suspended. This meets the qualifications according to a law passed this year. Now, the Constitution of 1901 says the license has to be from AL but further gives the legislature license to change qualification requirements. The subcomittee argues that the Constitution holds, her attorney argues the new law makes the AL suspension moot - if I were Ms. Marshall, I would be looking for an opinion on that before August 26.

(Yes I was there, no I don't tweet)

"When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak." (Audre Lorde)

---

by: mpmarus @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 02:02:57 AM UTC

We would appreciate a first hand report (0.00 / 0)

Any chance you could share at least the basics of this meeting?  What did they vote on, what passed, who was elected/reelected and so forth.  Plus any of the spicier bits you can share.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:50:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

and I will post one (4.00 / 1)

When I get home from work. There were some spicier bits, some of which were mentioned by others in the comments on Moving the Election Date for SDEC officers.

"When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak." (Audre Lorde)

---

by: mpmarus @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 15:07:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please do. (0.00 / 0)

If I have time I will cobble together the bits and pieces I've heard, but please don't let that deter you from posting your firsthand observations.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 15:16:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Should have posted this earlier (4.00 / 2)

But I was trying to get something up before the SDEC meeting and was pressed for time (many thanks to Mooncat for fleshing it out).

There is no complaint that will get a lawyer disbarred quicker than one that the lawyer stole monies belonging to a client. Further for the Bar to suspend before a hearing indicates (1) there is a lot of evidence against Marshall and (2) there is a fear she will do further harm to this or other clients. Finally there would appear to be a paper trail to wit: checks.

As far as a replacement:

1 - To appoint the person Marshall defeated would be a real slap in the face to the voters

2 - To appoint a white would most likely alienate black voters

3 - To appoint anyone with close ties to the Jefferson County DEC or the SDEC would probably look like a "fix" and alienate everyone

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 02:41:27 AM UTC

a special election would be the most fair at this point (4.00 / 1)

here's the problem I have with the appointment

even if a Judge is appointed due to a vacancy - names are submitted to a local judicial commission compromised of local attorneys and lay people who then turn three names over to the Gov.

usually these are short terms where the Judge retires a couple years before the end of the term. or a Judge is removed. I've yet to see a Judge appointed in Jeff Co for anywhere close to a full term

just simply allowing party insiders from across the state to make the decision on a six year term seems very unfair. why should party activists and leaders from Montgomery , Huntsville, Mobile and everywhere in between make that decision as I said earlier?

this seat can be held open until after January at which time if needed a special election could be held. I think that is the only fair way to do it at this point.

---

by: gradyw @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:05:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting Question (4.00 / 1)

But you may be talking about two entirely different things. If a vacancy occurs in a party's nomination before the general election (the nominees dies or decides not to run in the general is the usual situation) - then the party may replace that nominee by appointment. Since Circuit Judge is a state office then the SDEC gets to name the new nominee.

On the other hand if a sitting judge vacates his/her office then the governor gets to appoint. In some circuits he must pick one of three nominees the local judicial selection committee (which is not a part of any party) puts forth.

By state law any judicial appointee made by the Gov must run in the next general election (there is an exception if  the next election is w/in so many months of the appointment, in which case the appointee runs in the second general election).

On top  of this, the Chief Justice,Sue Bell Cobb (D), has asked the Governor not to fill any judicial vacancy as a cost saving move. However I also hear that the Chief Justice is advancing the argument that she has the authority to move a vacant judgeship from say Jefferson County to Madison County.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:27:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

as you said "may replace" (4.00 / 1)

just schedule a special election and let the voters decide.  

---

by: gradyw @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:34:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is there a way to ensure that Riley does not just walk in and get an appointment? (4.00 / 1)

In my experience with disciplinary committees of the Bar, I am told they take only act so swiftly when there is fire under the smoke. She should have stepped aside when she lost her Alabama license.

Who would get to vote in a special election? This was a Democratic candidate. Is there a way to ensure that a Democrat gets the seat or does everyone hate Joe Reed so much that it is clouding their vision? I would take a Party insider's pick than one of Riley's cronies. 

---

by: Sundog @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:31:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

a special election before now and november (0.00 / 0)

to pick the nominee. i guess it's highly unlikely but i don't like the idea of party insiders from a different part of the state picking the Judge for Jefferson County.

we've got to get rid of partisan judicial elections. that's the moral of the story.  

---

by: gradyw @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:36:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree totally regarding partisan judicial elections (0.00 / 0)

As to a special primary to fill this slot on the ballot -- doesn't the party have to certify nominees within the next few weeks?  That's a really tough deadline if you're going to have an election.  Further complicating matters, wouldn't the party have to bear the cost of that special primary? 

I agree that it's always better to let the people decide, but in some cases the logistics make that impossible, and the SDEC clearly has the authority to make the selection.  The larger question is: should they have that authority or should the rules require they always put nominations to a vote of the public?  Even when a nominee is disqualified very near the time ballots must be finalized?

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:47:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still was the Riley appointment (0.00 / 0)

although she was open from the beginning with him that she would run as a Democrat.

---

by: gradyw @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:39:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the clarification. (4.00 / 1)

What can you tell us about Still? Does she pass the smell test. Is she fair in the courtroom?

---

by: Sundog @ Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 05:10:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]