Jerry Summers
As one of nearly 700 attorneys in the Chattanooga Bar Association (CBA) who either did not take the time to vote or was inadvertently not attentive enough to exercise my right and "privilege" to praise or take anonymous cheap shots at judges I am a little reluctant to comment on said process ---- but I will. In the four adjoining counties of Hamilton, Rhea, Bradley, and Marion there are approximately 1,625 lawyers that have an active law license and would be eligible to belong to CBA and vote in the judicial poll every eight years. (Only 117 stated their preferences in secrecy).
In my beloved profession some legal eagles are known to kiss the ring, robe, or lower portion of the judicial anatomy when they are appearing in court to argue their case. Others welcome the opportunity to take advantage of the secretive nature of the poll to express their displeasure at getting an adverse ruling that might negatively affect their own pocketbook or professional image.
The strongest proponent of creation of this straw poll was the late Selma Cash Paty who served as the first female president of the CBA when women were in the distinct minority in the legal community in Tennessee (and Hamilton County).
To vote on the issues of legal ability, moral character, diligence, and judicial temperament on a subjective basis doesn’t always adequately represent the true picture as to a judge’s competency to make important financial and freedom decisions affecting citizens.
The original intent of the judicial poll was to “tactfully” make a judge aware of maybe a deficiency in their overall performance and character without creating a negative viewpoint that might hinder self-improvement.
As a past president of the CBA I formerly had the privilege of hand delivering the judicial poll results to each individual officer in the black robes. I can represent that my appearance during my presidency did not always meet with unanimous favorable approval by all members of the judiciary.
With the increased emphasis on radio, television and other forms of media advertising the selection of judges becomes expensive and sometimes misleading as to the overall qualifications of candidates.
The judicial authority to administer Justice in our society is too important to let both positive and negative comments in a secret ballot by a small minority group of attorneys be determinative of an incumbent’s qualifications.
The official poll results may be informative but should not act as the sole basis for voting in one of the most sacred rights we have under the First Amendment of the United States and comparable Tennessee constitution and statutes.
The late Judge Raulston Schoolfield was an avid critic of the judicial poll by the CBA because of the organization’s involvement in his impeachment and disbarment in 1958-1960 and had a different perspective on the one-in-eight years process.
When he was elected as a non-lawyer judge in 1974 and re-elected in 1982, he addressed the poll by asserting that he “would take his qualifications as a candidate to the group that really counted – the voting public.” However, the judicial poll results in his 1982 race were more favorable than anticipated. His support from young attorneys was high as the controversial figure often advised and helped the neophyte members of the bar who came into his division of the General Sessions Court in Hamilton County.
The CBA poll results should be only one criteria to consider when a vote for or against an individual judge is cast by attorneys that have had actual experience in appearing before any magistrate/judge.
* * *
Jerry Summers
(If you have additional information about one of Mr. Summers' articles or have suggestions or ideas about a future Chattanooga area historical piece, please contact Mr. Summers at jsummers@summersfirm.com)