You might have noticed, Sharp Reader, the Arkansas Voter Guide that the newspaper's news division put out last weekend. It's impressive. The candidates in dozens of races are given the opportunity to talk to voters. Or not talk to voters.
A few candidates (a very few) had blanks under their names because, for some reason or another, they didn't respond to the paper's editors/reporters/nosy types. We were going to mention that in relation to Karen Baker, state Supreme Court justice and current seeker of re-election. We didn't need to. Her opponent did.
"Throughout this campaign," said Circuit Judge Gunner DeLay, "I have answered every question posed of me, both by the press and members of the public. On the other hand, my opponent has not made a single public appearance as a candidate, has been unavailable to members of the press, has failed to appear at candidate forums, and has refused to answer questions in voters' guides. My opponent is part of the liberal left wing of the court, and I believe that is why she is hiding from the public."
Well.
It certainly shouldn't matter to a voter if a judge, judicial candidate or first-year law student likes to talk to the press. Actually, there is a long tradition of judicial candidates not answering questions about hot-button issues, for fear that they'd give reason to have to recuse later. But there's a difference between showing judicial restraint and being unresponsive. Over and over.
We knew we'd heard the name Gunner DeLay before, and sure enough, he made this column back in the fun old days when Paul Greenberg and Kane Webb were writing circles around the politicians and daring them to catch up.
He's been a conservative politician in Arkansas news since memory runneth not to the contrary. Gunner DeLay used to be a state rep, then a state senator. Lo and behold, he's now a circuit judge. They grow up so fast.
Usually when we interview judges, or those who want to become judges, we stay away from the usual topics in the news (abortion, immigration) and ask about their judicial philosophy. Which they can answer without fear of breaking tradition. Here is what Gunner DeLay told our reporters: He said he's a constitutional conservative, and:
"My judicial philosophy is simple--I am an originalist who believes the Constitution should be interpreted with the original intent of the drafters in mind, and I am a textualist who believes words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning when considering the effect of statutory language."
To translate from the legalese: He uses common sense in his decisions.
Which is why we'd recommend voting FOR Gunner DeLay in the Position 6 race for Arkansas Supreme Court.
There's another Supreme Court race that could get interesting: the seat for Position 2. It's a three-way battle between incumbent Robin Wynne, attorney David Sterling, and District Judge Chris Carnahan.
Chris Carnahan is another one of those "originalist" and "textualist" types. Which is how conservatives like their judges. That is, conservatives like judges who don't read into words things that just aren't there. (In a 2014 speech, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said: "The Constitution is not a living organism. It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say.")
As far as Judge Carnahan goes, he told this newspaper: "I believe we must have justices that do not legislate from the bench, acting as super-legislators." Which sounds like a good start for a judicial philosophy.
In his campaign announcement, he said, "One of the reasons and probably the main reason that I am running for the Arkansas Supreme Court is to put an originalist face on the interpretation of the laws passed by the Arkansas General Assembly or by the people of the state of Arkansas."
That is good enough reason to ask Arkansas to vote FOR Chris Carnahan in the Position 2 state Supreme Court race.