If you're going to have somebody argue your case, you'd be lucky to get Annabelle Tuck to do it for you. (Trust us.) She's the visionary/former state Supreme Court justice/lawyer ace/hall of famer of the Arkansas courts. Yes she really is in the Arkansas Women's Hall of Fame.
When she called the other day, we knew we were in trouble. Not legal trouble, thank God. But we had little doubt she was going to make her case.
What case? Does it matter? Whatever the case would be, she'd make it.
This editorial column has been semi-pro-Issue 1 from the first. Some of the ideas therein sound more than reasonable. As good a lawyer as the Hon. and honorable Annabelle Davis Clinton Imber Tuck is, we still think some of the proposals in this Issue 1 perhaps before the voters are good ones.
"Perhaps before the voters" because everything's on hold now.
Issue 1 would put caps on attorneys' fees. Good idea, that. If a body is hurt in a car accident, why should his lawyer get 50 percent of the jury award?
Issue 1 would put caps on certain lawsuit damages, read: punitive damages. Which would make the state more business-friendly. Nothing in Issue 1 would cap economic damages.
Issue 1 would reform the tort laws so that the legislative branch would make the rules for the judicial branch.
Earlier this month, a judge ruled that Issue 1, the whole thing, should be stopped in its tracks, and votes not counted on Nov. 6, because combining so many different matters amounted to "log rolling" the voters--and the state constitution says all matters on a constitutional amendment like this need to be germane to each other. As we said the day after the ruling:
"The push to make Arkansas a more business-friendly state can continue, should continue. And the push to limit lawsuit awards can continue, too. (Don't be fooled by the trial lawyers: Juries will always be able to compensate for economic losses brought on by injury or recklessness.) But this push by lawmakers might have had too many wooden spoons in the roux."
In the future, the voters may be asked to speak on these ideas again. But they'll have to do so one at a time.
Madam Justice Tuck, however, gave us a civics lesson during her visit. She talked of a not-so-little matter called Checks And Balances. And how such things work in American government(s). Believe it or not, newspaper folks can prove educable.
The part of Issue 1 that seems to bother her the most is that last part: the legislative branch making the rules for judges. Imagine lawmakers getting involved in procedures and evidence. And tumping over years of rulings and precedent. Not only that, but imagine if all the lawmakers heading off to jail these days had been making the rules of procedures and evidence over the years. For the record, that last thought was ours. Annabelle Tuck was lady enough to leave that comment to the more ill-mannered inky wretches in the meeting.
Annabelle Tuck explained that judges have to recuse when a big donor is before their court. But the Ledge? Doing things for big donors is almost the job description of a state lawmaker. Should the legislative branch be trusted to make judiciary rules for or against big companies in their districts? Or tell judges what kind of evidence is allowable? Or tell your lawyer where to send his case?
Annabelle Tuck said California's legislative branch controls judiciary rules. And why would Arkansas want to be like California?
We told you she'd make the case.
The courts have ruled that Issue 1 is a non-starter, and the votes will not be counted. So why are We the People still watching all those commercials on TV, pro and con?
Because the courts could rule another way tomorrow.
A Pulaski County circuit judge has declared Issue 1 almost null and almost void. But that ruling is being appealed to the state Supreme Court. If the state's top court rules against the lower court, the votes most certainly could be counted.
We doubt that happens. Surely the state's Supreme Court doesn't want the Ledge making its rules, either. And that "germane" part of the state constitution makes this what seems a clear case.
But stranger things have happened. In Arkansas, in the state courts, many stranger things have happened.
Maybe the best course of action is for the Ledge to regroup. Put one amendment before voters to limit lawyer fees. Put another amendment before the voters to limit certain damages. And, if they dare, take on Annabelle Tuck on the takeover of judiciary rules.
Us? We're hoping the state Supreme Court just takes the whole thing off the table this year.
Editorial on 09/30/2018