Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges voters-pamphlet changes and criticizes juvenile facility; auditor says state law limits county authority
Summary
A resident asked the board to require more information about judicial candidates in the voters pamphlet and criticized juvenile facility use and costs; the county auditor responded that rules for state candidates (including most superior court judges) are set by state law and candidate statements are submitted by the candidates and not independently fact-checked.
During the public-comment period a resident identified as Flo urged the board to change the local voters pamphlet to give voters more information about judicial candidates and their records.
Flo said county voters currently "have no control over anything that they do or decide when they decide something," and asked the board to require a synopsis of how judicial candidates have ruled in the past so voters can better evaluate them. She also criticized what she described as low juvenile-facility occupancy ("an average of 6 to 8 inmates" with highs she said reached 12 in a facility she said was built for about 34) while the county spends what she described as "not quite 4,000,000, but 3 over 3 and a half million dollars a year" on the facility.
The county auditor (name not specified) replied that the voters-pamphlet rules for state candidates are set in state law and that the countys authority is limited to local candidates. "Those rules are set in state law and then local rules. Were able to adopt rules locally, but not for state candidates or, for candidates that file with the Secretary of State's office, which includes most of our superior court judges," the auditor said. The auditor added that candidate-submitted statements and photos are the candidates choice and that the office sends reminders and rules to encourage submissions; "That's not fact checked. It's not proofed directly from the candidates," the auditor said.
Commissioners and commenters reading online remarks noted that many judicial races are uncontested; one online commenter suggested the public could respond by not voting for incumbent judges. Commissioners clarified the boards primary statutory responsibilities are budget and facilities management and that they do not supervise adjudicatory decisions by judges.
Flo said she intends to work with a group to vet judicial candidates and publicize their records in future elections. The auditor invited residents to contact the auditor's office with further questions.
The board did not take a formal action on the requests during the meeting; commissioners encouraged follow-up with the auditor and noted limits imposed by state law.
