The candidates in the race for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court provide the most polarizing vision for the direction of our state over the next decade. The election also introduces more amendments to the Alabama Constitution, an already lengthy and confusing document. Limiting the amount of amendments we continue to add is key to Constitutional reform, but we have chosen a few to support, and we discuss them below. The state’s conservative wing has nominated former Chief Justice Roy Moore to fill the position, reclaiming the post he held until a disgraced fall from office ruined his reputation as an unbiased arbiter of the law. In 2003, Moore was removed from his position as the state’s highest judicial officer after refusing to follow an order from a federal judge directing him to remove the large statue of the Ten Commandments he had placed in the rotunda of the federal judicial building in the middle of the night. Since his removal, Moore has maintained that he will “always acknowledge God” in the state’s court system and argues that liberal extremist groups are trying to remove the moral fabric of our society. He has spent the last few years as the president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a nonprofit organization based in downtown Montgomery that represents and educates the public on the necessity of acknowledging God in government, according to the organization’s website. Moore has sought the governor’s office in the last two statewide elections, but lost both of his primary races. Moore now wants his job back, and has not been shy about his intent to return the court to a similar mindset that he championed during his last time in office. The state’s Democratic Party had a bit of a rocky start in choosing a candidate to face Roy Moore, eventually supporting Judge Robert S. Vance, Jr., a respected trial judge from Jefferson County. Vance is the son of the late Judge Robert S. Vance, Sr., a federal judge who was tragically killed by a mail bomb sent to his Birmingham home in 1989. Although Vance has only been involved in the race for a few months, he has out raised his Republican challenger by almost 2-to-1 margins. Vance has focused his campaign for chief justice on the necessity of bringing groups together and effectively representing the entire state of Alabama, regardless of political affiliation. He is not shy about his support for bipartisanship among all political views. Vance contends that he will not place partisan politics into the job of chief justice and will bring fairness and pragmatism to the office. Vance provides a strong challenge to Moore and would provide a more progressive and centrist perspective to the state’s highest court.

Amendments:

One of the major problems with the Alabama Constitution is its excessive length. Rifled with amendments pertaining to specific counties or cities, it is cluttered and inefficient. Amendments 3, 5 and 11 are examples of amendments that do not pertain to citizens of Tuscaloosa city or county, but require a statewide vote. Hope for constitutional reform remains, but for that to be possible, the skeleton of the Alabama government must change, limiting state control of minute county decisions. A vote for or against 3, 5 or 11 is nothing more than an uneducated guess at the correct vote. Because we are not knowledgeable about the best scenario for counties not applicable to us, we will not suggest a vote of support or against. However, the alternative to some sort of reform process within the state’s constitution – like writing a new constitution – could prove to be problematic on many levels. With the Republican super majority in the state legislature and a rubber stamp of approval available in the governor’s office, one party would be able to dominate any significant reforms. With recent pieces of legislation like the state’s controversial immigration law emanating from these legislators, the model for a new constitution would likely be a disaster for the state’s progress. An atmosphere of bipartisanship is absolutely necessary for any feasible attempt at true reform – a trait not common in the state capitol.

Amendment 2

Amendment 2 raises the cap on state bonds to $750 million. Governor Bentley has called this amendment one of the most important of this year. However, the language stated on the ballot seems to complicate what it actually does, and what it provides, to industries that want to locate or expand in the state. The amendment provides more opportunity and funding for the state in luring major businesses and creating jobs in the state. Amendment 4

Amendment 4 plans to remove language regarding poll taxes and school segregation remain in the Alabama Constitution. Their presence in the constitution is racist and outdated, but critics of the amendment claim that it could possibly deny education to some, as it does not specifically guarantee the “right to education.” This is obviously a weak argument, as education will remain heavily protected. Voting not to remove racist language from our constitution would hurt us nationally as we attempt to progress from our issues in the past. Amendment 6

This is nothing more than a republican attempt to block Obama’s health care reform, but because federal law always super cedes state law, it is yet another pointless amendment, only lengthening our already confusing constitution. Voting for this amendment would only prove how uneducated our voting populace is about how the law works. Vote against amendment 6. Amendment 7

The language of this amendment is intentionally written to be vague. A “yes” vote would hinder union rights in the state, requiring more elections and more red tape in unions and businesses. Alabama Democratic Chairman Mark Kennedy supports a no vote, but conservatives in the state are trumpeting the amendment as a way to protect unions. But the vague language protects their true motifs, whatever they may be. Amendment 8

Amendment 8 sets the salaries of members of our state House and Senate to the median household income; it also prohibits members from increasing salaries for their own terms and requires signed vouchers for reimbursements. Current salaries will be lowered as an effect, which is needed in our failing economy. While some may be concerned this amendment will restrict lower-income citizens from running for office, voting for this amendment will force greater accountability to our state legislators.