The following was received from attorney Brendan Shiller as an email. With the consent of Mr. Shiller, it is reprinted here as a guest post. Please note that that I have corrected yesterday's post to delete the incorrect assertion I made about John Preston that Mr. Shiller points out below. I apologize for the error.
A couple of people forwarded your blog post regarding the Judicial Accountability PAC to me. First, let me say the the whole post was generally accurate and mostly fair.
We do have an honest disagreement about what is appropriate in judicial elections. I think we have created a hybrid democratic process for judicial elections that results in a huge disservice to the voter and therefore to our justice system. By both not allowing judicial candidates to speak on issues and by not allowing the same type of negative campaigning that we allow for all other elected offices, we deprive voters of important information. I of course understand the principal of not wanting to undermine the integrity of the judiciary. But, if we are going to have elected judges, then we need to allow all of the means of communication and debate (vagaries and all) that are generally allowed in democratic elections. It is my hope that going forward the Judicial Accountability PAC and other PACs will fill this void and provide more information and more energy in judicial elections.
As for your specific argument that the PAC crossed some type of bright line by making an argument against a candidate because of who she represented, I think there is an honest disagreement here. I have spent a career suing cops and representing the criminally accused. If I ever choose to run for any elected office (i.e. Alderman, Governor, State Senate, etc.), I can guarantee you that such representation would be used in attacks against me (if I were a legitimate candidate that had a chance of winning). And, it would be completely fair. I chose to be a civil rights attorney and a criminal defense attorney. That all people have a right to representation does not in anyway diminish the argument that attorneys choose what type of law they engage in and who they represent and that these choices reflect a certain bias and perspective on the world that may carry over to the bench. Further, this history of representation is even more important (even more probative to use the evidentiary standard) to voting given that our rules prevent candidates from discussing their position on most issues and most controversies they will be judging.
There was absolutely nothing illegal or unethical about the activities of the Judicial Accountability PAC in the Navarro/Golden campaign. This cannot be said of the activity in the Beach/Webber campaign where there were clear campaign finance violations. Once the PAC's quarterly report is filed, 100 percent of all donations and expenditures will be made public. And over the course of this summer, hopefully as the PAC adds hundreds of attorneys members, and creates a full board and bylaws, all of its future actions will be democratic and transparent. This is how we want democracy to work. Without vehicles such as this PAC there will continue to be negativity shrouded in secrecy such as the Webber mailing against Beach that is both unethical and illegal.
Lastly, and most importantly, there was one specific factual inaccuracy in your blog. The John Preston that is the chairman of the PAC is actually a different John Preston than the one I represented in a civil rights case several years ago. I know that's a weird coincidence, but I happen to know multiple John Prestons. The John Preston that is the chairman is fairly well known in certain small activist circles and is about three times as old as the John Present that sued CPD.
Thank you for all the work that you do. I am a big fan.
A couple of people forwarded your blog post regarding the Judicial Accountability PAC to me. First, let me say the the whole post was generally accurate and mostly fair.
We do have an honest disagreement about what is appropriate in judicial elections. I think we have created a hybrid democratic process for judicial elections that results in a huge disservice to the voter and therefore to our justice system. By both not allowing judicial candidates to speak on issues and by not allowing the same type of negative campaigning that we allow for all other elected offices, we deprive voters of important information. I of course understand the principal of not wanting to undermine the integrity of the judiciary. But, if we are going to have elected judges, then we need to allow all of the means of communication and debate (vagaries and all) that are generally allowed in democratic elections. It is my hope that going forward the Judicial Accountability PAC and other PACs will fill this void and provide more information and more energy in judicial elections.
As for your specific argument that the PAC crossed some type of bright line by making an argument against a candidate because of who she represented, I think there is an honest disagreement here. I have spent a career suing cops and representing the criminally accused. If I ever choose to run for any elected office (i.e. Alderman, Governor, State Senate, etc.), I can guarantee you that such representation would be used in attacks against me (if I were a legitimate candidate that had a chance of winning). And, it would be completely fair. I chose to be a civil rights attorney and a criminal defense attorney. That all people have a right to representation does not in anyway diminish the argument that attorneys choose what type of law they engage in and who they represent and that these choices reflect a certain bias and perspective on the world that may carry over to the bench. Further, this history of representation is even more important (even more probative to use the evidentiary standard) to voting given that our rules prevent candidates from discussing their position on most issues and most controversies they will be judging.
There was absolutely nothing illegal or unethical about the activities of the Judicial Accountability PAC in the Navarro/Golden campaign. This cannot be said of the activity in the Beach/Webber campaign where there were clear campaign finance violations. Once the PAC's quarterly report is filed, 100 percent of all donations and expenditures will be made public. And over the course of this summer, hopefully as the PAC adds hundreds of attorneys members, and creates a full board and bylaws, all of its future actions will be democratic and transparent. This is how we want democracy to work. Without vehicles such as this PAC there will continue to be negativity shrouded in secrecy such as the Webber mailing against Beach that is both unethical and illegal.
Lastly, and most importantly, there was one specific factual inaccuracy in your blog. The John Preston that is the chairman of the PAC is actually a different John Preston than the one I represented in a civil rights case several years ago. I know that's a weird coincidence, but I happen to know multiple John Prestons. The John Preston that is the chairman is fairly well known in certain small activist circles and is about three times as old as the John Present that sued CPD.
Thank you for all the work that you do. I am a big fan.