Arkansas Supreme Court Issues Ruling on Write-in Candidate for Judge

On April 30, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued this 7-page unanimous opinion in Proctor v Daniels, 10-384. Willard Proctor had been a judge of the Circuit Court in Little Rock, but he had been removed by the State Supreme Court last year for misconduct.

Proctor tried to run for his old seat this year, but was not permitted to get on the ballot. Then he filed to be a write-in candidate, but he was not permitted to do that either. The Arkansas Supreme Court decision strikes down the law that says “any judge removed from office by the Supreme Court cannot be appointed or elected thereafter to serve as a judge.” The Court said this adds to the state constitutional qualifications to be a judge, and statutes can’t do that.

On the other hand, the Court said that Proctor still can’t run for his old office, because the Supreme Court already “removed” him; they didn’t just “suspend” him. The Court says at the end of the decision that lower court judges who were removed by the State Supreme Court may never again get that old job back. Thus, even though the law that dictates this outcome is unconstitutional, in the end it doesn’t make any practical difference. The decision seems eccentric.

Political Scientists Who Have Studied Polarization Do Not Believe that Top-Two or Blanket Primaries Ease Polarization

Several California newspapers have recently endorsed Proposition 14, and they all say the same thing in their editorials. They all assert that California’s legislature is polarized and that a “top-two” system will make the legislature less polarized and less partisan.

However, the political scientists who have studied polarization in state legislatures do not agree. Assistant Professor Boris Shor of the University of Chicago prepared a graph early this year that shows the degree of partisan polarization in each state’s legislature. His chart, listing all the states in order of conservative-to-liberal (as measured by state legislative votes plus their answers to questionaires), can be seen here.

California’s position on the bottom of the chart is meant to show that California has the most liberal legislature in the nation.

States are not listed in order of polarization.

The chart does show that California’s legislature is the most polarized, but it also shows that Washington state’s legislature is almost as polarized as California’s legislature. Washington state used a blanket primary 1934 through 2002, a classic open primary in 2004 and 2006, and a top-two primary in 2008. If it is true that blanket primaries and top-two primaries counteract polarization, Washington cannot be explained. Washington state has, on the average, that third-most liberal Democratic legislators in the nation. Only the California Democrats, and the New York Democrats, are more liberal. Washington state Republicans in the legislature are considerably more conservative than Republicans on the average in the nation.

Political scientist Eric McGhee, of the Public Policy Institute of California, has been speaking at various places in California about Proposition 14, and his presentation includes the Shor chart. McGhee’s op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle last month also agrees that California’s polarization is not a function of its primary system.

Political scientist Seth Masket also commented on the Shor chart on his blog. He says, about Proposition 14, “Given that other evidence about primaries and partisanship suggests little relationship between the two, I doubt the initiative would have anything close to the impact its backers suggest.” Masket is the author of the book, “No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures.”