I think the discussion provides some interesting insight into running for judicial office in West Virginia and across the country.
"The other day, I met with a couple of my old law school professors at a local bookstore. One of them is running for the Supreme Court this year, and I wanted to pick his brain on the oddity of running for a political primary for a judicial position that is supposed to be apolitical once you reach the bench. That just seems so odd to me. And for those outside the legal profession who don't know any of the players well? It has to be even more odd -- making the line-up of endorsements and special interest support all the more important.
Bob Bastress was my Constitutional Law professor, and I worked for him my first summer on a project for the WVACLU. He's a great guy -- the sort of law school professor who takes time to explain a complex issue, and who also does serious representation for folks who can't afford big legal guns who don't do pro bono work.
Bob has worked on cases which have opened public education through textbook access and tried to prevent school consolidation from wrecking rural schools. He once challenged a hidden camera in a workplace locker room, ostensibly put there for "safety" considerations, but which happened to be focused on the lockers of the three guys trying to unionize the business. He has put in years of work on ballot access and anti-discrimination suits, union representation, and civil liberties cases for the WVCLU. And he's been a professor at the WVU College of Law since 1978.
Which is to say, he's not exactly rolling in the benjamins when it comes to campaign cash. He's been endorsed by the largest newspaper in WV, and he got the highest ratings from the state bar membership, and a host of union nods. But campaign cash talks loudly and, increasingly in races across the country, that campaign cash is coming from special interest proxys.
I asked Bob if he'd be willing to stop by this morning and chat a little about running for judicial office, with the understanding that he's limited in how he can answer certain questions on issues that might eventually come before the court. It isn't often that we have an opportunity to talk with someone who is facing this kind of race -- judicial elections are, sadly, not covered nearly often enough in terms of scrutiny and discussion -- and I thought everyone would enjoy this."
I thought a lot of you might be interested in reading this thought-provoking conversation.
