For hire: one president, inexperience necessary

Elections aheadBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.
The most noteworthy finding from Arkansas’ first presidential poll wasn’t who was at the top of the standings, but who was at the bottom.

In a poll conducted Feb. 4 by Talk Business & Politics and Hendrix College, Sen. Ted Cruz was leading the Republican field with 27 percent, while Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio each had 23 percent.

No surprises there. Cruz was a big winner not long ago in a straw poll among Republican Party insiders. Rubio, as of Feb. 4, was the rising establishment choice. The day before, he’d been endorsed by two of Arkansas’ congressmen, Reps. Rick Crawford and Steve Womack, and by Lt. Governor Tim Griffin. And Trump is, well, Trump, the darling of a sizable percentage of the electorate who want somebody, anybody, other than a politician. (And the only one who could fill up much of Barton Coliseum, as he did Feb. 3.) Ben Carson, also not a politician, was fourth at 11 percent, while Carly Fiorina – again, not a politician – had 4 percent.

At the bottom of the standings were Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who also had 4 percent support, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 1 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 1 percent.

That’s 6 percent total for the three governors who have actually led state governments in large diverse states, tried to balance budgets, worked with legislators from both parties, responded to disasters, made court appointments, spoken on behalf of all their citizens – in other words, sort of what presidents do.

Meanwhile, 88 percent are supporting the candidates whose political resumes are, well, a little thinner. Like President Obama before them, Cruz (age 45) and Rubio (age 44) are young, first-term senators. Trump, Carson and Fiorina have almost no political experience between them, though they have achieved much elsewhere.

Elections are about hiring a person to do a job. But if that were their only purpose, the three governors would have been doing better than 6 percent between them.

Elections also are about giving voters the chance to express their values, and this year, “proven political leadership” is not one of them. They’re angry, and, as is usually the case in a democracy, angry about different things. A lot of voters aren’t looking for someone who can make the trains run on time. They want someone who says they’ll tear up the tracks and replace them with something else.

That’s how you get a Trump or a Cruz or, on the Democratic side, Sen. Bernie Sanders. As with Trump, know-it-alls like me have said all along that he can’t win, and he probably still can’t. The race now moves South, where the advantage goes to Clinton. The Talk Business poll has the state’s former first lady leading 57-25 here – again, before the New Hampshire primary. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has stacked the deck against Sanders. Despite his big win in New Hampshire, Clinton leads in the delegate count, 394-44, thanks to all the party’s superdelegates who have pledged their loyalty to her.

But Sanders, who raised $5.2 million in the 18 hours after his New Hampshire victory speech, isn’t going away – especially not this year, with this electorate.

Arkansans don’t vote until March 1, and a lot can change between now and then. Since the poll was conducted Feb. 4, Rubio’s balloon was deflated by a poor debate performance and then a disappointing fifth place finish in New Hampshire. Kasich finished second in that state but will have a tough time following that up. Christie and Fiorina have since dropped out of the race. Clinton – she’s damaged.

One other thing that might affect the vote count: Mike Huckabee may have suspended his campaign, but he’s still on the ballot, as are Christie and Fiorina and Rand Paul and all the other candidates who once formed that l-o-o-ng line on the debate stage. So Arkansans still will choose from 13 candidates, one of them a favorite son.

Still, it’s hard to see how the race’s overall dynamic will change in Arkansas. Among the Republicans, it’s Cruz and Trump and Rubio, probably in that order, with the governors trailing well behind.

The Democrats – superdelegates and others – will support the state’s former first lady, of course.

Related: Kasich, the anti-Trump

Why Supreme Court races matter: Lake View

golden balanceBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

How important are the two Arkansas Supreme Court races on your ballot March 1? Two words provide the answer: “Lake View.”

In a case that drug out over 15 years, the Lake View school district, which no longer exists, argued that the state’s school funding system didn’t meet standards set forth by the Arkansas Constitution. The Constitution requires that the state “shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.” The Lake View district said the state wasn’t doing that because it didn’t fairly serve small, poorer districts like itself. The Supreme Court repeatedly agreed, demanding that the state revamp its system to provide an “adequate” and “equitable” education for all students.

The state complied. Education went from being a local responsibility to being a state one. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were spent improving school facilities. School districts were consolidated. The Legislature ensured that before anything else is funded, schools get their money. In the midst of the Great Recession, when other states were cutting education funding, Arkansas schools always got more, and it’s made a positive difference.

As in years past, members of the House and Senate Education Committees this year will prepare an adequacy report for the full Legislature. The guiding principle will be the same as it’s always been since the Lake View case: How much more must be spent on schools to keep the state out of court? Once the report is done, it likely will be accepted by the rest of the Legislature without a lot of serious debate.

In other words, about 42 percent of the state’s general revenue dollars will be directed largely in obedience to rulings made years ago by Supreme Court justices.

The Lake View case ultimately was about more than just education. Because so much money was dedicated to schools, some tax cuts weren’t even considered. Meanwhile, less remained for other state needs, including health care.

In fact, it’s possible that the Lake View case is one of the reasons why the state has the private option. That’s the program that uses federal Medicaid dollars to purchase private health insurance for lower-income Arkansans. It was created after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could choose whether or not to use Obamacare dollars to expand their Medicaid populations. A lot of Republican-leaning states said no. Arkansas said yes by creating the private option in 2013.

It’s hugely controversial. Opponents say it’s Obamacare, which it is.

Why does it exist here? Lake View may be one of the reasons. Because so many state dollars were tied up in schools, perhaps Arkansas was a little more willing to accept federal dollars for health care.

The decisions made by Supreme Court justices in the Lake View case have colored every area of state government for much of two decades, and will do so moving forward. That why Supreme Court justice races are so important.

So let’s return to March 1, when voters will have four choices for two slots. In the chief justice’s race, current Associate Justice Courtney Goodson faces Circuit Judge Dan Kemp of Mountain View. Goodson has been an associate justice since she was elected in 2010 (and is now one of four female justices on the seven-person court). She previously served two years on the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Before that, she was a law clerk at the Arkansas Court of Appeals from 1997 to 2005. Kemp has served 29 years as a circuit judge and 12 years as a drug court judge. He also served nine years as a municipal court judge.

For associate justice position 5, Circuit Judge Shawn Womack of Mountain Home faces attorney Clark Mason of Little Rock. Womack was elected a circuit judge in 2008. Prior to that, he served 10 years in the Arkansas Legislature, including as chairman of the Joint Budget Committee. Clark Mason is an attorney and former president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association.

By the way, after this election, there will be no justices left on the Court who ruled in the Lake View cases. The issue of school funding – again, 42 percent of the state’s general revenue budget – might come up again. Just saying.

Related: Still want to elect judges?

Priorities and the Hogs

Football on tee - transparentBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “juxtaposition” as “the act or an instance of placing two or more things side by side.” On January 27, an interesting one occurred at a University of Arkansas System Board of Trustees meeting.

The trustees were led on a tour of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences hospital campus in Little Rock. While parts are new and gleaming, what once was the main hospital needs $13 million just to become fire code-compliant, and even then it would be badly outdated and inefficient. UAMS would like $97 million to spruce up that building and other facilities, all for administrative space. Tearing the building down and replacing it would cost $250 million.

Board members later heard from the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Students there enjoy a new science and technology building and a new fitness center, but in the middle of campus is an unused old multistory facility with weeds growing from the roof, and not as part of a science experiment. The campus security headquarters is an aging house, which can’t be reassuring to parents, and after a good rain, parts of the campus are underwater. UAPB would like money, too.

Then came the University of Arkansas Athletic Department, which seeks a $160 million expansion of its football stadium that would include 3,200 premium seats along with other amenities, such as a video board. The project would be funded through $40 million in donations and a $120 million bond issue repaid through higher ticket prices, paid mostly by fans not sitting in those 3,200 premium seats.

The trustees gave Athletic Director Jeff Long their blessing to continue gathering information, but not before former Sen. David Pryor had questions and abstained from voting. He said he was not necessarily opposed, but priorities should be discussed. This would be, he said, “the largest single bond issue in the history of higher education in the state of Arkansas.” He asked who would benefit, and how much of the costs students would bear.

“A bond issue is a debt of the University of Arkansas,” he said. “It is a debt of the people of Arkansas, and ultimately if something goes wrong, who’s responsible? And that’s the people.”

This is where the columnist perches in his ivory white tower and wags his finger at the trustees, right? Well, not necessarily. Pryor had it right. A discussion is needed.

True, it was quite a juxtaposition to see the state’s teaching hospital and one of its universities asking for money that’s currently not available for boring but necessary stuff like medical administration and drainage, which was then followed by a mostly celebrated $160 million request for football seats used six or seven times a year by rich people, along with other amenities.

However, the needs UAMS and UAPB are seeking to fill would be met partly by tax dollars that haven’t yet come from the Legislature. Moreover, it should never be assumed that public entities are spending the money they already have as efficiently as can be expected (or that they’re not).

Long, in contrast, was asking to pursue money paid voluntarily by donors and fans who, if they don’t like the higher ticket prices, could choose to watch the games on TV, which is what I do. The UA Athletic Department is one of the nation’s few big time college programs that turns a profit and is self-sustaining. In fact, it’s given money back to the university for academics for the newly built Champions Hall.

Finally, at what point do the Razorbacks add to the university, and at what point do they distract from it? The head football coach, Bret Bielema, is by far the highest paid state employee, including the doctors saving lives at UAMS. That seems like a misplaced priority. On the other hand, the Razorbacks are the university’s best marketing tool and a tie that binds the state together. And on the third hand, does all this send a message to young people that while we adults tell them to hit the books hard so they can become doctors, what we really value is how hard the Razorbacks hit the opposing players in the SEC?

It’s a complicated discussion, and it’s worth having before letting people spend $160 million of their own money on a football stadium, and making taxpayers responsible if something goes wrong.

Still want to elect judges?

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

There are times when the work of journalists doesn’t really change much, and there are times when it might help. This might be one of those times when it helps.

I’m referring to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette’s recent series detailing how six class action law firms, all but one based out of state, have contributed $296,000 in campaign funds to current Arkansas Supreme Court justices, and then argued cases in front of those justices, winning more than they lose. A partner in the one Arkansas firm, John Goodson, is married to Associate Justice Courtney Goodson, who recuses from cases involving his firm.

Justices must raise money like any other candidate, and most probably don’t like it and do the best they can within an imperfect system. Still the series has called into question whether they are being unduly influenced by those donations. 

The larger question is whether judges should be elected at all.

Americans have come to accept that legislators and executive branch officials raise money from interest groups and then give them something in return. We don’t like it, but we apparently can live with it.

But the idea of the judicial branch potentially being for sale is a little harder to accept. Someday we might be the one sitting in a courtroom facing an opponent who gave that judge a big donation. And now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, judges can receive even more of those helpful dollars, and from more sources that can remain as anonymous as they want to be.

Electing judicial candidates has always been awkward because it’s the branch that’s supposed to worry about the law rather than popular opinion. Traditionally, candidates have refrained from describing their specific views in order to maintain their impartiality when they hear a case. That practice made it hard for voters to make an informed choice, but at least it lessened the politicization of the courts.

But with more at stake and more dollars involved, the justice system is becoming more political. For example, a 2014 Supreme Court race involved an ugly and misleading ad funded by an outside group against the losing candidate who had once done his duty as a court-appointed attorney for a sex offender. Another example occurred last year, when the Supreme Court stalled in making a potentially unpopular ruling on the state’s gay marriage law until the U.S. Supreme Court bailed it out and made the decision for it.

The issue is especially timely because, in less than a month, Arkansas voters will elect two Supreme Court justices. For chief justice, Goodson faces Circuit Judge Dan Kemp of Mountain View. For associate justice position 5, Circuit Judge Shawn Womack of Mountain Home faces attorney Clark Mason of Little Rock.

These two races together are arguably as important to Arkansans as the 2014 governor’s race. But in that race, most voters probably had a pretty good idea who they were voting for. Enough dollars are flowing into judicial candidates’ races to call their impartiality into question, but not enough to really introduce the candidates to the voters.

What should be done about all this? The Arkansas Bar Association has appointed a task force to study the issue. A group of legal types, including two retired Supreme Court justices, has created a privately funded effort to try to correct misleading advertisements and to provide information about candidates through a website, www.arkansasjudges.org, that doesn’t offer much yet. Gov. Asa Hutchinson has questioned if appellate judges – the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals – should be appointed, as they are at the national level.

That’s an imperfect solution, too, because it could give the governor a lot of power. However, there are ways to make it less imperfect. In Missouri, the governor appoints from a list of three candidates provided by a judicial commission, and then, at the next election, the voters decide if the judge should be retained. If not, which has only happened twice, then the process begins anew.

State Rep. Matthew Shepherd, R-El Dorado, introduced a constitutional amendment in the 2015 legislative session to create a similar system in Arkansas, but it didn’t make it. Maybe 2017 will be different.

For now, we’ll still elect our Supreme Court justices the same way we do now – two of them, in fact, on March 1. Know which ones you want to vote for yet?

How Conner Eldridge thinks he can win

Conner Eldridge

Conner Eldridge

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

The campaign headquarters office where Conner Eldridge and I visit Jan. 19 is spacious but sparsely furnished – still developing, in other words, like his candidacy.

The 38-year-old former U.S. attorney knows he faces an uphill battle trying as a Democrat to win the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Sen. John Boozman, a Republican. Since 2010, the state’s allegiance has flipped. After a century and a half of Democratic dominance, Arkansas’ congressional delegation is now entirely Republican, as are all of its constitutional officers and two-thirds of its Legislature.

Eldridge, however, believes he can buck that trend. He thinks he has advantages this year that haven’t been available to the last two Democrats running for Senate: Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who won only 37 percent against Boozman in 2010; and Sen. Mark Pryor, who won 39 percent against now-Sen. Tom Cotton in 2014.

Eldridge looks at those numbers and then compares them to the University of Arkansas’ 2015 Arkansas Poll. It found an electorate split three ways: a third Republican, a third Democrat, and a third independent. Twenty-three percent of independents say they lean Democrat. Add them to the Democrats’ third, and that’s pretty much the base of Lincoln and Pryor voters.

He has to secure those votes plus find enough to win the election.

How does he think he can do that when Lincoln and Pryor fell far short? First, this will be the first contested Senate race in Arkansas in a presidential election year since 2004, when Lincoln defeated state Sen. Jim Holt.

That’s significant because presidential elections draw a higher turnout with a broader, more diverse electorate than midterms. In 2012, there were 1,078,548 ballots cast in Arkansas. In 2014, there were 226,000 fewer voters. It’s no secret that those missing voters in higher proportions are younger and/or minorities – in other words, more often Democrats. Midterms tend to draw an electorate that is older, more affluent, more conservative, and more white. Those characteristics more often describe Republicans.

Eldridge thinks some of those Democratic voters who stayed home in the 2010 and 2014 midterms will return to the polls this year and vote for him. How much is that worth? Some.

Second, Eldridge believes that Hillary Clinton, Arkansas’ former first lady, will outperform President Obama more here than she will in any other state. Obama won 37 percent here in 2012, dragging Democrats like Pryor down with him. Clinton should do better, and if she does, Eldridge should benefit. How much is that worth? Some.

Third, the Arkansas Poll revealed that despite serving in the House and Senate since 2001, Boozman remains somewhat of a low profile figure. Asked if they approved of the job he is doing, 44 percent either didn’t know or had no opinion, while his favorables were relatively low at 38 percent against even lower unfavorables of 18 percent. It’s not that Arkansans don’t like Boozman, who is an uncommonly nice and gracious person. A lot of them just don’t know him that well. Eldridge would be a new face and says he would be a more active senator.

“And I think Arkansas voters, independent voters, Republicans, Democrats, and independents, still vote the person, not the party, and are hungry, particularly at this important time, for somebody who’s going to shake things up, make a difference, work hard, and get things done,” Eldridge told me.

Finally, he draws hope from the recent Louisiana governor’s race, where a Southern Democrat won a rare victory these days against a Republican. The Democrat was an ex-Army Airborne Ranger while the Republican has a history with prostitutes. But at least it can be done.

So with a base of support somewhere close to 40 percent, plus a few percentage points because it’s a presidential year and a couple of points because it’s Hillary Clinton running and not Obama, and a bit more support from independents because he’s a new face, Eldridge thinks he can make a game of this.

We’ll see. This is a crazy year, at least in the presidential race. But Boozman still has an “R” by his name, and in the last two Senate elections in Arkansas, that’s been worth a lot.

Steve Brawner is an independent journalist in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com. Follow him on Twitter at @stevebrawner.