Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. This publishes five days weekly with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).
8.11.16
Campaign missteps highlight LA 2nd appellate race
As the level of government-by-judiciary increases,
along with judges’ salaries in Louisiana, so has the amount of negativity in
these contests, as a battle for a Second
Circuit Court of Appeals race demonstrates.
Republican 26th District Judge Jeff Cox challenged
incumbent Republican Judge Jay Caraway,
a veteran of two decades. Neither ever has run a campaign (or, technically, had
a campaign run for them, as legally judicial candidates cannot involve
themselves in their own campaigns), always finding themselves unopposed.
In Louisiana, roughly 90 percent of the time judicial
races go off without opposition, and of those that do, most of the time those
concern open seats. Rarely does a sitting jurist draw an opponent, as the legal
community that deals with the incumbent often hesitates at opposing openly a
judge who will rule on their cases.
But progressive ambition and the Constitution that
mandates no one can assume office after the age of 70 sometimes means
expediting matters. Having gained reelection in 2014, Cox still has four years
on his present term but now in his early fifties the clock ticks, and he can
run only in the second district (including Bossier, Webster, Claiborne,
Bienville, Union, Lincoln, Jackson, Caldwell and Winn Parishes) where he
resides (there are two others). The election calendar would have given him shots
at open seats in 2018 and 2020 but, apparently, those don’t seem to arrive
quickly enough.
And perhaps the lack of campaign experience with
an opponent shows for both. Each campaign has faced chastisement from the
Supreme Court’s Judicial
Campaign Oversight Committee, which oversees the campaign conduct for judicial
positions. In the past month the panel has said both
campaigns have misrepresented material facts in their advertisements.
Each one points to the other candidate’s perceived
inadequacies in handling their respective cases, with Cox over the airwaves and
in print outdueling Caraway substantially (according to the campaign finance
reports prior to the ones now trickling in 10 days prior to the election, his campaign
had spent over $400,000 or five times Caraway’s campaign’s). But Caraway’s campaign (apparently; the site has no
information about who is behind it or financing it and is registered
under a service that masks actual
ownership of the name) has put up a web site with all sorts of presumably negative
information about Cox performing his duties and his campaign.
Yet Cox has one ace in the hole – an endorsement
by state Republicans no doubt earned by his lifelong status as a
Republican, buttressed by additional endorsements by popular and prominent
Republicans. Caraway in the past always ran as a Democrat, but switched for
this election. Given the antipathy to the Democrat label in the region, these pledges
help in contests like this where voters have lower amounts of available information
about these than typical.
Thus Cox should be regarded as the favorite, even
as Caraway’s incumbent status will pose a formidable barrier to overcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment