Posted by 
Because a judge in Alabama has to resign to become a candidate in a non-judicial race, many doubt that Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb would actually become a candidate for governor.
A lawyer has told me that when then-Chief Justice Roy Moore was considering a run for governor, there was a suggestion that the case could be made that Moore would not have to resign because the Alabama Constitution defines the Governor as a “chief magistrate.” The stretch argument is that Governor, as chief magistrate, is a judicial position, and a judge would not have to resign to run for it. The argument was not tested, and I have heard no one assert strongly that it would hold up.
FWIW, while it is generally understood that Cobb would have to resign to run for Governor, there was a little chatter at the end of last week that a Senate bill might drop this week that would be intended to clarify any legal ambiguities on the matter.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
I don’t understand why her retiring from her 1 vote on the Supreme Court is a big deal. She runs for the big one and either wins and serves or loses and drifts off into retirement.
Here’s the section from the Article VI Amendment (Amendment 379) to the Alabama Constitution which reformed the court system in Alabama in 1975 on the issue of judges seeking other non-judicial offices:
“(b) No judge, except a judge of a probate court, shall seek or accept any nonjudicial elective office, or hold any other office of public trust, excepting service in the military forces of the state or federal governments.”
Obviously, the plain meaning of this prohibition, which is written within Art VI – the article dealing with the judiciary, prevents any Article IV judge from seeking any non-Article VI elective position. As governor, although he is defined as “chief magistrate” in Article V, all of his enumerated duties are to carry out the functions of the Executive Branch. He has no Article VI duties, and therefore, the prohibition from Article VI prevents one of its judges from seeking office for a non-Article VI position.
nicely done
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
But, then again, many of us think the law that prohibits a state campaign (like, for Governor, maybe) from accepting contributions until one year before the date of the election would have prevented Congressman Davis from spending the $25,000 threshold from his congressional campaign and legally becoming a candidate for Governor, at least until that June 2009 date was reached. Realize, no one (at least, no one reasonable) thinks he could not then transfer that money to his state campaign committee legally and rightfully. I just cannot get my mind around how spending federally raised money on a state race does not qualify under the Fair Campaign Practices Act definition of a “contribution” which is prohibited until June 2009. But, then, although I didn’t go to Harvard, I have slept at a Holiday Inn Express, just not last night.
I would hate to have to survive on the argument that Governor is a Judicial position. The big deal is that at long last the Demos broke through (at great expense)and got someone elected to one of the Appellate Judgeships. If Bell resigns it will discourage future contibutions to Demo judge candidates.
The campaign funding issue is called a loophole. Technically his campaign for governor didn’t accept or solicit contributions, his campaign for Congress did. That loophole is there because it helps incumbents who already have leftover funds in a campaign account.
It should surprise no one that Roy Moore considered using legally questionable means to maintain his office while pursuing a higher position. The belief that Sue Bell would do likewise is completely unfounded.
So, does this criticism of Artur not also cover Tim James.
I mean, 25,000 and 400,000 is awide chasm.
Who are the prospects seeking millions to hold our states highest courts?…All former and current judges seem to want alittle more state money so who are the people left with as future candidates?
Exactly #8! What about Ron Sparks, Roger Bedford and Sue Bell Cobb too? Ron had signs printed and rumor has it that both Bedford and Cobb have been polling the Gov. race. All of that costs $ and they haven’t even file official committees. From what I have heard, a poll costs more than $25k.
Sue Bell is turning off some potential supporters by openly raising race by telling them that a black can’t be elected governor.
A very prominent Montgomery attorney is telling people that Sue Bell’s campaign might be over before it started if someone on her call sheet happened to hit record.
I wonder if Sue Bell will release her polling data when she announces. I mean, if her polls actually show Davis can’t beat James, Byrne , or Ivey, shouldn’t she share?
Tim James is an easy one if you read the law – there is a plain exception for personal loans to a campaign, and since he is a multi-millionaire, it was easy for him to make a personal loan to his campaign. Cobb, Sparks and Bedford are a little more of a stretch – they all had existing state campaign committees, albeit for different races, with preexisting state balances, which, under precedent, have been utilized for other, successive races. I am not saying that is clear under the law, just that it has traditionally been allowed without complaint. The Davis situation is different – it appears his lawyers worried more about what the FEC rules allowed and less with what was allowed under the state law. After all, he was even quoted in the Montgomery paper after his announcement as saying he was not allowed under Alabama law to form a campaign committee until June. Obviously, that understanding was wrong (although he may now claim he was misquoted, as most politicians do when their reality changes) since he has already formed a campaign committee and it is not yet June.
And to Old Prosecutor- if his campaign for Governor neither solicited nor accepted contributions, how is his campaign for Governor now spending money when it has no money and cannot get that money until June? Supposed loophole or not, as a prosecutor you certainly know that laws are to be complied with, and I don’t know how you can spend money that the law prohibits you from having. At this point, he is no longer a caongressional candidate in anyone’s eyes, only a candidate for Governor, and that campaign cannot raise money until one year before the June 2010 primary. So how can it continue to spend money?
The Davis opp researchers have obviously done some work on this, but I have some questions. Does Alabama law allow existing state committees to spend money but ban existing federal committees from doing so? If so, did the law change after Governor Riley spent his federal money to help his campaign for governor? When did the Governor file with the Secretary of State, was it before or after his one year mark? Does anyone who does not work for Davis or Sparks have an unbiased answer?
Landingham – the loophole revolves around whether you can spend money in another campaign account you have for a race you are no longer in. Obviously Bedford, Sparks & Cobb are doing so as well as Davis. I believe the law prohibits you from raising money for a state race while the legislature is in session, not the 1 year.
The point is that Alabama Campaign Finance laws are very weak and ill defined.
del-
All very good questions. First, let me state that I am not an opp researcher for either candidate or party. I admit I am a Democrat who is concerned about the potential down ballot impact a Davis candidacy has, although I am torn because of the potential upside a Davis victory has given his obvious visions and abilities. All that being said, I have yet to be convinced there is a workable pathway to victory for him November, and, in politics, the one thing the last 8 years should have taught us is that it doesn’t matter how you play the game, it is whether you win or lose. (Unfortunately).
Any way, back to your questions, Governor Riley was in a little different situation. According to records and news reports, he did not announce anything, formally or informally about his plans for 2002, even not to go so far as to say what his “intent” was, much less to schedule a couple of big press appearances, hire a full blown statewide campaign team, etc., and then claim he still only had an intent. His official announcement was on July 4, 2001, well within the 12 month window, and until then he merely said he was being encouraged to look at the race. He filed his first Fair Campaign Report with the Secretary of State on June 15, 2001, establishing a principal campaign committee. His first report of expenditures was on January 31, 2002. Apparently the transfer of $$$ from his congressional committee funds came through large donations his campaign received from the National Republican Congressional Committee, but again, those do not show up until the allowable 12 month window. Where Davis pushed the envelope was in moving up the schedule so that he could be out there longer the usual 12 month primary season without a fully clear analysis of how to pay for it.
Old Prosecutor-
I agree that the Alabama laws are weak and not well defined. However, Section 17-5-7 (b) specifically provides “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, Section 13A-10-61, a candidate, public official, or principal campaign committee may only accept, solicit, or receive contributions (1) To influence the outcome of an election. (2) For a period of 12 months before an election in which the person intends to be a candidate. . . .”
The section goes on to bar fundraising while the legislature is in session, with certain limitations. Still, regardless of whether Sparks, Bedford and Cobb are violating the law (I think the only one that is arguably close is Sparks, since neither of the other two has announced anything close to intentions, only exploratory activities, which I believe could easily be paid for by existing monies from another state registered and reported campaign fund), I find it impossible to think of any logic for Davis and his campaign spokesperson to stand up and say that what they are doing is allowed by state law. Granted, Sparks may very well have a similar problem, and, if he does, I will complain similarly about him. Weak or not, laws are laws, and those who are running for higher office should comply with them, be they Democrat or Republican, white or black, incumbent or challenger.
Landingham, Mary Orndorff of the B’ham News reports that once the Davis campaign hit the $25,000 threshold and registered him as a candidate for Governor, he quit accepting any donations for his campaign.
I think Orndorff’s article may answer many of your questions. He is, as the article explains, now permitted to spend money out of his existing federal campaign account for his gubernatorial campaign. But if he weren’t you’d have quite a story. :)
It seems there is being alot of money thrown around concerning Appeals and Supreme Court Races 2010, no names available according to AP. Is this suprising, we have the Nations Highest Judicial Campaigns for some time. Is this an influence in Sue Bells opt for Governor?
Danny-
I like Mary Orndorff, and remember her when she was a reporter covering the Alabama Legislature. However, all she has done in the article you cite is parrot the Davis legal argument, which I find faulty and believe is not supported by Alabama law. Under Alabama law (not federal law or FEC rules), a contribution is a gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit or money or anything of value, a payment, a forgiveness of a loan, or payment of a third party, made for the purpose of influencing the result of an election; OR any transfer of anything of value received by a political committee from another political committee, political party, or other source; OR a couple of other things that are not really relevant to this discussion.
There is nothing in Alabama law (again, not federal law or FEC rules) that says the Davis congressional committee is the same as the the Davis gubernatorial committee. (I also don’t think there is anything in federal law that says that either, but I am not as familiar with those laws or regulations.) In fact, it is quite clear, since the Davis gubernatorial committee was just formed, that it cannot be the same as the Davis congressional committee. Therefore, expenditures by the congressional committee on behalf of the gubernatorial committee are clearly transfers of things of value received by the state political committee from the federal political committee, and, therefore, a contribution. Under Alabama Code Section 17-5-7, the gubernatorial committee cannot accept contributions until June 2009.
Oh, and by the way, before we give him too much credit for suspending fundraising for his congressional committee – one of the few things I DO know about FEC rules is that once a federal officeholder announces he or she will not seek reelection, they cannot continue to raise funds beyond debt retirement. Since he clearly has no debt, he cannot raise money.