That time of year

Tomorrow is the day -- election day in Alabama! Most of the attention so far has been focused on two races: the Governor's race and the contested seats on the AL Supreme Court.

In the Governor's race, each primary offered what promised to be a spirited matchup. The Republicans had the incumbent Gov. Riley facing off against Judge Roy (10 Commandments) Moore. Riley seemed to have an advantage in that the economy is doing well, unemployment is low, lots of new industry has moved in during his term, and his administration has been scandal free. On the other hand, Judge Moore seemed well positioned among the far-right voters that dominate the primary AND Riley was "foolish" enough to attempt to raise taxes (sort of) as soon as he took office. Many Republicans swore they'd NEVER vote for him again after that. What looked like a battle, though, seems to have become very lopsided, with Riley holding a 69-26 edge in the most recent polls.

The same thing seems to be happening on the Democratic side. The Don (I want a lottery) Siegelman vs. Lucy (I'm not on trial for corruption) Baxley contest seems to be swinging to Baxley. I'm amazed that she couldn't put this one away much sooner, but her campaign pretty much has centered on her clever campaign slogan (I Love Lucy) and the fact that she's not being tried in federal court right now -- sort of a "vote for me because I'm not Siegelman" campaign. I finally did hear a Lucy ad the other day and it told me she's a big supporter of education. Seriously, that was it. Don, on the other hand, is still pushing his "I was framed campaign." Siegelman claims two things: 1) His federal corruption trial is all a ruse put in place by Riley, and 2) He's still pissed from having the last election STOLEN from him. [A late-reporting county sent in an erroneous early result that appeared to go for Siegelman, but the official return was clearly in favor of Riley.] Seriously, Don won't let that go. In his interview with the Huntsville Times he listed his biggest disappointment of his time in office as, "Having won two elections, but only getting to serve one term." Even if I were a Don fan, I'd find his whining a bit annoying. According to the aforementioned poll, however, Don won't get another shot at Riley. Lucy is leading 49-31.

Of course, polls can be wrong. What would I do if the state ended up with a Judge Roy vs. Lottery Don matchup?!?! Bad as I'd hate to, I know what I'd have to do -- but I wouldn't be happy about it. Kind of reminds me of the Louisiana election that year when the choices were Edwin "the convict" Edwards vs. David "klan man" Duke. I'm really hoping the AL polls are accurate.

As for the Supreme Court races, ... I've finally had to get over my distaste for electing Supreme Court justices because I think these races are just too important. It's a fact that in AL today the Republican primaries likely will decide the winners and there's a bloc there that frightens me. The previously mentioned Judge Roy lost his spot as Chief Justice after he took on the federal courts. One of his proteges, though, did win a seat in the last election. This guy has written almost no (seriously, I think 1) decisions, but he did find time to go public and write a scathing op-ed piece criticizing his colleagues for following a SCOTUS precedent in a death penalty case. To explain his lack of productivity, he argued that it took him a while to learn the ropes of being a judge. So what does the self-admitted inexperienced judge now want? He wants to be Chief Justice! He and 3 other candidates are sort of running as a "faith and morality" bloc hoping to unseat the "liberal" Republicans currently serving on the AL Court. I figure either they'll all win or they'll all lose and I'm kind of frightened by that.

On a lighter note, however, there's the 1st Judicial Circuit race in South Alabama. Here one candidate (Bailey) is using a deposition from a lawsuit his opponent (DuBose) once filed in which DuBose claimed, "I've lost my capacity to earn a living practicing law." Later, DuBose allegedly stated, "I don't want people around here knowing that I'm taking medicine for depression and for mental deficiencies or incapacities or limitations or infirmities or disabilities or whatever you want to call them like I'm doing."

Okay so that makes me have a little sympathy for DuBose, but his ads seem to take pains to point out that Bailey is "30-something" and has NEVER BEEN MARRIED! Hmm, wonder what point DuBose was trying to make there? DuBose defended that part of his ad campaign by saying he believes marriage is important, especially for a judge:

"If a person is going to be making decisions in court about families and children and about husbands and wives, if you ain't been there, you can't do it," he said. "That's not negative; that's not being critical. It just so happens that I'm married and have been for 23 years. He's not. That's his choice, and he has to live with that." [Emphasis added.]

Excuse me? He "has to live with that"? As if being unmarried is some ruinous stigma that disqualifies someone from public office? Further, what's the basis for claiming a judge can't rule on family issues unless he is married with children? Would DuBose have to recuse himself from cases involving unmarried parties? Grrr!

Oh, there's also the "no same-sex marriage" amendment on the ballot. Even if I weren't against the substance of the amendment, I'd still think this was a bad idea. The state already passed laws prohibiting this, but supporters say it'd prevent the state being "forced" to accept such unions. I'm no lawyer, but the only way I could see the state being forced to do so would be under a federal court order (see Judge Roy's earlier experiences) and federal courts would trump state law OR state constitutional amendments, wouldn't they? Unfortunately, there's only one possible outcome of this vote. I just hope it's closer than I anticipate -- that'll at least be something.

Okay those are my thoughts going into tomorrow's voting. We'll see how things turn out.