Is it an election or not? You can’t have it both ways.
Tennessee’s constitution says the state’s Supreme Court justices “shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state.” Although a “yes” or “no” retention vote is not my interpretation of this straightforward mandate, a special panel appointed by the Tennessee Supreme Court found that it meets the state’s constitutional requirement. My personal view aside, a constitutional initiative will be on the ballot this November which will put to rest this four-decades-old question once and for all. But that is in November; let’s talk about what happens in August.
It is the height of irony that the loudest defenders of retention elections are generally the staunchest critics of a growing grassroots movement to urge voters to reject some of the judges on the ballot this year. Whether it is the Trial Lawyers Association or the Chamber of Commerce, any group, liberal or conservative, should have the right to inform the voters of their views. It is an election, isn’t it?
Since the retention vote system was implemented in 1971, only one judge has not been retained. It was not on the basis of partisanship. That vote was primarily due to a controversial decision regarding the death penalty. This year, crime is again the issue. Two cases specifically have garnered media attention. In one case, the actions of the Supreme Court removed Arthur Copeland, a cold-blooded contract killer, from death row. Copeland was subsequently released from prison. Two years later, he was arrested for a violent rape.
In another case, the court vacated the death sentence of Leonard Smith, who admitted killing two elderly shopkeepers in one night during a crime spree.