Before the candidates
judge on future court cases, Owen County voters will first get
the chance to judge them on Election Day.
Four contested judicial races will appear on ballots throughout
Owen County, from the district level all the way to the Kentucky
Supreme Court. And dozens of potential voters turned out at
a forum Thursday night at Owen County High School to hear what
the candidates had to say.
Those running for seats on various benches often fielded questions
about experience and their views on judicial impartiality throughout
the night.
Selected statements from the four contested judicial races on
which Owen Countians will help decide the outcomes appear below.
Kentucky Supreme Court, 5th District
Wil Schroder and Marcus Carey both fielded questions Thursday
night about restoring public trust to the state’s highest
court.
Carey compared the role of the Kentucky Supreme Court to the
role of the fiscal court at the county level, saying it takes
a managerial role over the judicial branch of government in
the commonwealth.
He said, if elected, he would look at the concerns the public
has now and look at the rules and procedures of the court to
make the system more efficient.
“I don’t think credibility is as big an issue as
my opponent,” Schroder said.
But he said some things could be improved in the court, such
as keeping partisan politics out “so we don’t get
an agenda.”
“Interpret the law, don’t make it,” he said.
Both discussed the role of a Supreme Court Justice at the state
level, but they did so by answering different questions.
“Literally. That’s it, literally,” Carey responded
when asked how a judge should interpret the Constitution. “It
is what it is— a written document.”
Schroder fielded a question about how a judge can ensure objective
decision-making.
“One way of doing that is to make sure you’re non-partisan,”
he said. “I don’t think any citizen should have
to decide if a judge is Republican or Democrat.”
In closing statements, Schroder said he was better qualified
and talked about his eight years’ experience as a District
Judge and 15 years on the appellate level.
“This is a Supreme Court job,” he said. “You
want somebody who has experience.”
Carey said his opponent was running “to shape the law
from the bench.” He said he would bring his life experiences
to the bench.
“I’m not an unprincipled Justice,” he said.
Appellate Court, 6th District, 1st Division
The first race that voters heard from during Thursday’s
forum was a bit one-sided.
One of the candidates, James Kidney, did not speak at the forum.
He had called beforehand and said he was awaiting a jury decision
in a trial, forum moderator Patti Clark told the audience.
His opponent, Joy Moore, answered questions about speedily resolving
appeals cases, equal justice and judicial impartiality, which
she said was the most important issue in the race.
“Judges should be impartial referees and should apply
law to the facts of the case,” she said, later adding
that her judicial philosophy is “very much in line with
the separation of powers our nation was founded on.”
Appellate Court, 6th District, 2nd Division
Michelle Keller and Owen Kennedy both answered questions about
the importance of being impartial on the bench and discussed
the importance of a fast-moving appeals process.
Kennedy said a judge must remain impartial and answer to the
rule of law, which he said he is a firm believer in following.
“When you realize and understand you answer to a higher
authority you cannot be influenced by other people or groups,”
he said.
Keller answered a question about a judge’s impartiality
in contrast to community groups to which he or she may belong.
“It is the role of a judge to put all personal bias and
prejudice aside,” she said. “The best judge can
judge against their beliefs”
Keller said she feels the most important issue facing the person
elected in the race is keeping the appeals process moving swiftly.
She said the current appellate judges have done well at speeding
up the appeals process.
“And that’s very good for parties, because they
get their answer quicker,” she said, adding that she wants
to keep the process moving in a timely manner and provide equal
access to justice for all, including people who can’t
afford a private attorney.
Kennedy said he believes he is best qualified for the position
since he’s worked in the appellate system for eight years.
“I can do that quickly,” he said. “And I think
that’s important.”
“We need justice to move quickly,” he said. “Justice
delayed is justice denied.”
Keller said she would promote equal justice from the bench.
“Every citizen has the opportunity to be heard,”
she said.
Kennedy was asked how he thinks a judge should interpret the
Constitution.
He replied that it “must be strictly construed”
and that he disagrees with those who say it’s a living
document.
“Rule of law means you follow the written law,”
he said. “The words of the Constitution have meaning,
it is a legal document, not a living document. Words of our
founders have meaning and should be followed.”
Keller told the audience of her experience practicing as a nurse
before and during law school.
“I will bring my personal work experience and family values
to the bench,” she said.
Kennedy defended his experience when asked about a Bar Association
survey in which 115 of 191 respondents said they had no opinion
or felt he was unqualified for the appellate position.
He said less than 20 percent of Bar members responded and that
it was a secret ballot.
“We don’t know who votes,” he said, noting
that membership is voluntary and that he is not a member.
Kennedy noted that he spent the past eight years doing appellate
work.
“I’m not a trial attorney,” he said
District Court, 10th District, 1st Division
Questions asked of the two candidates hoping to become the next
trial judge in the 10th District centered on the candidates’
experience and decision-making.
John Threlkeld and Elizabeth Chandler Lester both talked about
what experience means, or doesn’t mean, for the bench.
When asked what he brought to the table that his opponent did
not, Threlkeld said he has 15 years’ experience in federal
courtrooms and that he has tried cases in other states.
He said the experience allows him to listen to what people say
and gets the facts. And it gives him an “ability to look
up the law, an ability to find the law.”
Lester took a different stance.
“It’s not a matter of who has the most experience
becomes a judge,” she said.
She noted that she has gained a different sort of experience
working as a prosecutor. And she said Charlie Satterwhite had
even less experience when he was first elected in 1978.
“But voters gave him a chance,” she said. “He
did very well for the next 20 years.”
Threlkeld said he wants to bring common courtesy back to the
courtroom.
“It seems to be lacking in a lot of courtrooms,”
he said when asked if the judicial system is lacking dignity
and respect. Threlkeld said “please” and “thank
you” are often forgotten in many courtrooms.
“People need to be talked to more nicely,” he said.
“Not everybody in a courtroom is a criminal.”
Lester took a similar stance, saying whether a speeding ticket,
DUI or other crime, the court affects the whole community.
“Everybody comes into a District Court at some point in
their lives,” she said. “We’re ordinary people,
and District Court is the court of ordinary people.”
Lester said in her closing statement that she wanted to address
issues she referred to as “gossip, rumors and lies.”
She said for anyone who heard negative things about her to contact
her.
“Anybody is welcome to try and get a hold of me,”
she said.
Lester said she supports the Second Amendment and her experience
is “beyond sufficient.”
In his closing statements, Threlkeld said the person voters
choose to elect should be based on knowledge of the law and
experience “not cliques.”
He spoke of his additional experience outside of the courtroom,
working for 27 years as an emergency medical technician and
fireman.
“I … know mistakes are made,” he said of what
he’s learned from life. “I also know that good things
happen.”
