Michigan voters are preparing to cast votes in the August 5 primary and November 4 election where many candidates will be vying for election or re-election to judicial offices. In most elections, the judicial races are the least publicized. Consequently, voters know too little about the candidates. The Wolverine Bar Association “continues its efforts to correct this problem by empowering citizens to make informed voting choices” says WBA President Chantez Pattman Knowles.
On July 22, the JQC conducted interviews of six judicial candidates and offered ratings of: (i) Extremely Well Qualified/Outstanding; (ii) Well Qualified; (iii) Qualified; (iv) Not Qualified; or (v) No Rating. Such ratings are based on both the JQC’s interview of a candidate and a review of a candidate’s completed questionnaire.
Oakland County Circuit Court – Family Division (Open Seat – No Incumbent)
Lisa Langton, Candidate — WELL QUALIFIED
34th District Court (Currently Held Seat – Incumbent)
Judge David Parrott, Incumbent — WELL QUALIFIED
23rd District Court (Open Seat – No Incumbent)
John Gyorgy, Candidate — QUALIFIED
JD Slaven, Candidate — NO RATING
25th District Court (Open Seat – No Incumbent)
Greg Clifton, Candidate — WELL QUALIFIED
32A District Court (Open Seat – No Incumbent)
Keith Clark, Candidate — QUALIFIED
The JQC evaluates the fitness of each candidate for judicial office based upon the candidate’s health; honesty; integrity; judicial temperament (i.e., fair, impartial, open minded, even tempered and considerate/courteous to jurors, parties, witnesses and counsel, etc.); legal ability (i.e., scholarship, analysis, judgment, clarity of expression, etc.); reputation; and trial experience.
There are five categories of ratings for candidates for election to judicial office: (i) Extremely Well Qualified/Outstanding; (ii) Well Qualified; (iii) Qualified; (iv) Not Qualified; and (v) No Rating.
Extremely Well Qualified/Outstanding: An individual must stand at the top of his/her profession and rank high among the best qualified judges or lawyers available for judicial service. The candidate must have outstanding legal ability and background and wide experience, wisdom, intellect, insight and impartiality. To be accorded this highest rating, a candidate should generally also have the breadth of vision and outlook which derives from participation in the civic, charitable, religious or political activities of the community and the work of the organized bar or other professional organizations. In short, the candidate should be a person whose preeminence in the law and as a citizen is widely acknowledged and whose qualifications for the position are virtually hailed by judges and lawyers.
Well Qualified: A “Well Qualified” candidate exhibits essentially the same qualities as an EWQ candidate. This person may have less experience but shows promise of all the criteria attendant to a EWQ rating.
Qualified: A candidate exhibits a fitness for the judicial office. Such candidate is considered average on an overall analysis of the Evaluation Factors.
Not Qualified: A candidate must be considered below average on an overall analysis of the Evaluation Factors. This rating indicates that the candidate is not qualified for the subject judicial office. However, such rating should not be construed as an adverse reaction to the candidate’s qualification as an attorney.
No Rating: If a candidate does not submit a questionnaire or attend an interview and there is insufficient information available to the JQC on a candidate’s fitness for the judicial office which the candidate seeks, the JQC shall make no rating of such candidate. However, if there is sufficient information available to the JQC, even in the absence of a questionnaire or interview, the JQC may rate such candidate.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
