Kentucky

Today, I am sharing a letter to the editor from the Courier Journal in support of Judge Katie King.  The letter was written by Steven Magre, former President of the Louisville Board of Alderman, and sets out two points that seem to have been overlooked by bloggers and media in coming down on Judge King. 

To these I add -  biting commentary from the pundits is not proof that inappropriate election conduct occurred, and I thus submit to all that we are a nation founded upon a "rule of law" so let the process work with the judicial campaign conduct committee and the state judicial conduct committee (as well as the election finance regulators).  In addition, Magre is correct in his personal assessment which more importanly belies an objective assessment - do you really think the law was violated by a Metro Council President, bank president, loving father when they had some of the best legal advice in the state available, a former metro council member spokesperson, and an advisory heads-up from the election finance regulators?

And yes, I was in her court for an appearance recently, and observed she was at task, the cases were moving smoothly, and she was judicial and in charge.  I have heard others make similar comments.  In any event, her next election will address her performance more so than her politics.

Two issues need to be recognized - legal vs. political.  The Katie King election was non-partisan but highly political and well-funded.  This may well be the nature of future judicial elections.  However much some voters may not like the money and the news sound-bites etc., do not forget the fact that news was generated, blogs were ablazing, and the public was watching (albeit much less than the presidential election I might add).  Public involvement and scrutiny are not a bad thing in elections.

If folks are unhappy with this judicial electoral process, then change it - elections or selections?

Oh yes, here is the letter to the editor: