How the Judicial Races Turned Out

November 9, 2016 § 6 Comments

Here are the contested appellate races:

Supreme Court, , District One, Position 2: Kitchens, 54%; Griffis, 46%.

Supreme Court, District Two, Position Two: Beam, 67%; Shareef, 33%.

Supreme Court, District Three, Position 1: Chamberlin, 31%; Brady, 29%; Kitchens, 25%; Crumpton, 15%.

Court of Appeals, District 2, Position 2: Westbrooks, 57%; James, 43%.

Court of Appeals, District 3, Position 1: Wilson, 50%; Hannan, 37%; Yoder, 13%.

It would appear from these figures, all of which are from AP, that there will be runoffs in MSSC Dist. Three and COA Dist. 3 (the inconsistency in nomenclature is the AP’s).

I have no results from any contested trial court elections around the state. Please feel free to add a comment about any local races if you have some authoritative info.


§ 6 Responses to How the Judicial Races Turned Out

  • BowTieLawyer says:

    Rankin Chancery Court Judge:
    John McLaurin – 76%
    Jim Nix – 24%

  • John Shirley says:

    It is easy to use 20-20 hindsight to review a trial court judge’s decision when you have months to review a transcript and have staff attorneys to review the pertinent case law and statutory law. Trial court judges don’t have that luxury and have to make immediate decisions. Therefore, appellate court judges should have trial court judicial experience.

    • Larry says:

      I totally agree, and have said this for a long time.

    • I confess that I’ve never understood this logic. Appellate judges aren’t supposed to rule on the basis of “what would I have done?” They’re supposed to reverse for errors of law. Whether a trial judge did something on the fly or after hours of research, is irrelevant to whether it followed the law or not. And the abuse-of-discretion standard that governs so many rulings gives a great deal of deference to the trial judge.

      I don’t mean any of this as a comment on yesterday’s elections. But to me, the important things for an appellate judge are the intelligence to understand the law and the wisdom to apply it.

      • Larry says:

        I would rephrase to say, ” … the intelligence to understand the law and the wisdom and courage to apply it.” The word courage rules out candidates who would campaign on a “strong law and order” platform and then be afraid to reverse a conviction for fear of losing votes. Every judge at every level has to have the courage to do what is right no matter what.

        We agree on the intelligence factor.

        That leaves wisdom. The most important source of wisdom is experience. Judging builds experience not only with nuts and bolts of practice and substantive law, but also develops insight into human nature from a perspective that one does not get as an advocate or an academic. I think that trail judging experience is crucial for appellate judges to have the requisite experience that leads to wisdom. I am not saying that any appellate decision should be based on “what would I have done.”

        I will concede that some appellate judges have a deep reservoir of wisdom on which to draw, regardless of judging experience. Armies Hawkins was such a judge in my opinion, although I don’t know for sure whether he was ever a trial judge. But I think the best appellate judges were trial judges first.

  • Amarette Speights says:

    Madison County Court Judge:
    Staci O’Neal – 57%
    Will Longwitz – 43%

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading How the Judicial Races Turned Out at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.


%d bloggers like this: