Masterson Predictions Arkansas Primary

These are just our predictions- nothing more, nothing less~

Senate
Lincoln Halter D.C. Morrison 10%...........runoff
Boozman - Holt runoff

Lt Gov
Darr wins

SOS
O’brien

Congress
1st Dist- Crawford squeaks by Smith
Have no idea on the Dem ticket
2nd Dist- Griffin wins
Elliot- Wills ...... runoff
3rd Dist-Womack and Moore in runoff

4th Dist- Gallas wins by small margin 51%


Supreme Court Seats
Baker wins....
Fogelman wins

Circuit Court Seats
Gary Carson wins…
Beth Bryan wins

Laurie's (first) Most Excellent Exit Poll~

I awoke this morning feeling supercharged for the events of the day. After doing my usual do-de-do’s like checking emails, updating twitter and Facebook, Mike and I piled in the car and headed off to vote at a fire station not far from the house.

I was immediately energized by the dealings. Being an “introvert” I only knew 50 percent of the people at the polls. Right after making our penciled little circles on paper ballots we decided to find some breakfast and write down our predictions about the candidates on our ballots, which I’ll share in the next post. Then I got the bright idea to do my own unscientific exit poll! Why not? I wanted to be out amongst the action and the people. I wanted to share in the spirit of the process after waiting for so many months.

I got home and quickly formulated the questions for my poll~ The fundamental idea was to see how many people I might find who wanted to become more informed and engaged. And I was really surprised by what I found.

I visited 5 voting locations within a 25 mile radius over 3.5 hours, wanting to get the largest random pool of people for Laurie’s first Most Excellent Exit Poll. The individual questions and results are posted below. But here’s what I found. Forty percent were at least 51 years old. The next largest age group at 25 percent was between 30 and 40. Over 45 percent of those I surveyed said they spent “several hours” gathering and researching information before voting while 30 percent said they spent just over an hour. Then 68 percent said they shared the information they had gathered with others (primarily a spouse or relative).

And here was a bit of a shocker, One hundred percent of the people who voted ( I believe that means EVERY single one of them) answered “No” to the question: “Are you happy with the current state of politics in America?” (Perhaps not much of a shocking surprise there). BUT, asked if they would want to become more involved to help change things 60 percent said NO! That was discouraging.

As a matter of fact, at the first two places I stopped to question folks, that number was also 100 percent. I was, ummmm, I have no words. Friends, it strikes me that our biggest problem is one of apathy. For those of us who understand how crucial it is that we all become engaged in the process of electing our leaders, it falls incumbent on us to make sure we are attracting others, and sharing with them, the absolute urgency in 2010 of becoming an engaged citizen, rather than an endangered servant~

Age	Percentage
18-29	18.00%
30-40	25.00%
41-50	18.00%
51>	40.00%
Time Spent Vetting
<>	25.00%
> 1 hr	30.00%
Several hrs	45.00%
Source of Info
Friends/Family	3.00%
Web	15.00%
ADS	5.00%
Organizations	0.00%
All Above	77.00%
Discuss Info with others
Yes	68.00%
No	32.00%
Happy with current state of politics in America
Yes	0.00%
No	100.00%
Voting Record
Always	80.00%
Sometimes	18.00%
1st time	2.00%
Want to be more involved
Yes	40.00%
No	60.00%

The Morning After?

Well, here we are just a little over 24 hours from the results of tons of primaries across the nation as they close the polls and report the results.

Wonder what will happen to all the candidates that have been expounding around the nation on their credentials, patriotism and how hard they want to work for us once the primary vote is counted?

The way I understand it there’s only one “winner” per party, unless of course there’s a run-off election. That having been said there are around 30 candidates who will not be moving toward the November general election just from the U.S Senate and Congressional races in Arkansas alone. When we begin counting non-winners in the other races such as Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, Arkansas Representative seats, etc. we should be well over 100 concerned Arkansans that have said they recognize our many serious problems and have ideas for fixing them.

Taking this a step further to include all the staff and volunteers in each of these campaigns, folks who have been so intently focused on these important issues over the past few months I’d daresay we might be up to almost 1000 Arkansans.

On Wednesday, May 19^th I challenge all those who have been so passionately involved in wanting to set things straight within our systems by being a public servant to become a servant leader. Will you still be interested in helping make Arkansas and its citizens a better place with your time, money and energy even after the whoopla and excitement of a campaign has died?

I would say that with 1000 fully engaged, committed citizens, Arkansas is poised to make epic change to affect the nation!

Supreme Court Justice Race~

Here is more info I found on the Arkansas Supreme Court Justices

On May 18th Arkansans will be asked to elect two Judges to the Arkansas Supreme Court. While some would have you believe that the Supreme Court race is one based mostly on personalities and endorsements, it can be argued that if someone takes seriously their right to vote they would feel the need to dig a little deeper especially where Supreme Court Justices are concerned.

Position 3 ~Race between Circuit Court Judge John Fogleman and Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Courtney Henry.

John Fogleman http://fogleman.edelta.net/

His website says: “He’s tried and heard thousands of cases” over the past nearly three decades. In all those cases the only blemish on Fogleman’s record is the controversial West Memphis Three case- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_3. The case revolved around the horrific murder of three boys and the life altering sentencing of three other young men. The Google hits on this case are astronomical. Emotions and conspiracy theories are abundant. A law library full of assertions have been made that Judge Fogleman “botched” the case but there has been NO proof of any wrong doing or judicial negligence on his part - in any way. In his 30 year career this is the only case I could find that was deemed “negative” or controversial.

Endorsing Forgleman are 3 former Supreme Court Justices, 19 former presidents of the Ark Bar Association and a former president of the American Bar Assn.

Courtney Hudson Henry http://www.henryforjustice.com/

As you can see, compared to her opponent, Henry has little experience as a Judge, but comes with a stack of endorsements. Supporters of Henry would include a politically diverse and influential group of people as former Republican Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt to Democrats like Jimmie Lou Fisher and Senator Mary Anne Salmon and President Bill Clinton.

Position 6 : State Court of Appeals Judge Karen Baker, Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox and Little Rock lawyer Evelyn Moorehead.

Karen Baker:http://www.judgebaker.com/

Mrs. Baker has tried and presided over thousands of cases so there is plenty to examine. I found that her most controversial case involved SWEPCO. The powers that be want to make her ruling in this case about everything she says it is not, which is that SWEPCO simply did not follow the law. http://bit.ly/dkalDL

Tim Fox: http://timfoxforsupremecourt.com/wp/

Fox has also tried myriad cases and in researching his record I found several cases that gave me pause.

One of the most heated and controversial cases involves a well known attorney in Little Rock Sam Perroni http://bit.ly/dcOq3a . From what I was able to understand Mr. Perroni missed a court date in Judge Fox’s court because he had a federal court case the same day. Mr. Fox held Mr. Perroni in contempt and things only went downhill from there. My challenge with this is that Judge Fox appears to have made the issue personal, spending time and money to “prosecute” something that could just as easily have been a judicial “reprimand”.

Another one that is concerning- Robinson v. Villines http://bit.ly/axYm00 where Judge Fox retroactively applied an increase in the library millage rates for the 2007 tax year. The decision was appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and a unanimous decision was made that Judge Fox clearly erred, stipulating no statutory or constitutional authority to retroactively apply the millage-rate increase.

In this overturned cases Judge Fox certainly appears to have usurped the law to make his case. There are more cases where Judge Fox was overturned because of the supposed “un-constitutionality” of his findings.

Evelyn Moorehead http://evelynmoorehead.com/

Being that Ms. Moorehead is not a judge there is no case law to “vet” however there is a news article on her website if found quite interesting- http://bit.ly/aPnUrD

This admittedly limited information hopefully will inspire voters to carefully explore all the candidates for which they will be pulling the lever on May 18th~ GET OUT AND VOTE!

Questions for Tim Fox

I visited with Tim Fox a few weeks ago & asked these and a few more questions. For the most part Mr. Fox did not have answers. I would like others to have the benefit of my research so that they to may ask pertinent questions. Those chosen to sit on the Arkansas Supreme Court should be sound constitutionalist that will protect the citizens of Arkansas, comply with and fairly enforce the law.

**I am not a lawyer so there may be details I do not have or understand but suffice to say these questions were not answered

JUDGE TIM FOX

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT, POSITION 6

STATEWIDE RACE

PRIMARY MAY 18, 2010

BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

LEGAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• Juris Doctor, University of Arkansas School of Law, 1981

• Private Practice, 1981-1991

• Chief Assistant City Attorney, City of North Little Rock, 1991-1996

• Prosecutor, North Little Rock District Court, 1996-1999

• Private Practice, 1996-2002

• Circuit Court Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, 2003 – Present

• Master of Judicial Studies, University of Nevada at Reno and National Judicial College, 2007

• Certificate in Judicial Development, National Judicial College, 2007

• Faculty, National Judicial College

• President, William R. Overton American Inn of Court, 2009 – 2010

PERSONAL

• Married to Cathy Cothran Fox for 27 years

• Father of two children, Caitlin and Andrew

• Pulaski Heights United Methodist Church

• Former Board Chairperson, United Methodist Children’s Home

• Former Board President, Friends of Arkansas Educational Television Network

CONSTITUTION – TAXES

1. The first case is one where, as I understand it, the Supreme Court of the United States said you made a mistake interpreting the Constitution, and that your interpretation violated due process that resulted in the unconstitutional taking of property. Can you explain?

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S. Ct. 1708 (U.S.Ark.,2006).

In this tax case, a taxpayer brought suit in Arkansas state court for determination that the notice provided by the state in connection with the tax sale of his property was insufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements and resulted in the taking of his property without due process. Judge Fox, entered summary judgment (without a trial) in favor of defendants, and the taxpayer appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court, 359 Ark. 443, 198 S.W.3d 520, affirmed, but the United States Supreme granted certiorari (that means that they agreed to look at the case).

The United States Supreme Court held that Judge Fox and the Arkansas Supreme Court were wrong saying: (1) when mailed notice of tax sale is returned unclaimed, state, as matter of due process, must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to property owner before selling property, if it is practicable to do so; and(2) steps which state took after being alerted to fact that notice had not been delivered, in proceeding with sale after simply publishing notice in newspaper a few weeks prior thereto, without ever posting notice at address to which notice was sent or taking other measures reasonably available to alert taxpayer of sale, were insufficient to satisfy taxpayer's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. They reversed and remanded.

2. Have you been reversed by the United States Supreme Court finding that your interpretation of a law or case violated the constitution?

3. Have you been reversed by the United States Supreme Court as a judge? As an attorney urging a particular position?

4. A few years later, the Arkansas Supreme Court, in another case involving taxes, said that you were wrong in retroactively applying a millage-rate increase regarding library taxes. As I understand it, they said you had retroactively applied the taxes even though there was no statutory or constitutional authority to do so. Can you explain that?

Robinson v. Villines, 2009 Ark. 632. (December 17, 2009).

In this case, Judge Fox retroactively applied an increase in the library millage rates for the 2007 tax year. Taxpayers challenged Judge Fox’s decision to make them pay a retroactively applied tax. Fortunately, the supreme court found that Judge Fox clearly erred and reversed the decision saying there was no statutory or constitutional authority to retroactively apply the millage-rate increase to 2007 library taxes after the special election. Every judge voting said that Judge Fox was wrong.

5. So explain why citizens, should trust you to interpret and apply the law regarding taxation in ways that are consistent with constitutional principles.

ELECTION/BALLOT ISSUES

6. In this next case, you refused to hear a voter’s challenge to Tim Hutchinson being placed on the ballot based upon Hutchinson’s failure to meet the residency requirements as set out in the Arkansas Constitution. When I read the section 7-5-207(b) statute, that the Arkansas Supreme Court relied upon when it said you were wrong, it seems clear that the statute specifically authorized a voter to challenge a candidate’s failure to meet the constitutionally required residency requirement. In fact, the statute was designed to make sure that voters could have a candidate removed from the ballot if the candidate was not qualified. Can you explain why you refused to hear the case?

Tumey v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 256, 196 S.W.3d 479 (2004).

A citizen and voter filed a complaint in a pre-election challenge to a candidate’s (Tim Hutchinson’s) failure to meet the residency requirement of Article 5, § 4 . The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed Judge Fox’s refusal to hear the case saying that he erred in dismissing the complaint based on certain provisions under section 7-5-801. That section is only available to a competing candidate who claims to be the rightful nominee or victor. The voter who was challenging Hutchinson’s name on the ballot was not a competing candidate and that section did not apply at all to a voter’s challenge. In addition, a voter’s challenge of a candidate on this constitutional issue is the type specifically authorized by section 7-5-207(b). They reversed Judge Fox’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded for a determination of the merits of the suit.

7. When you sent out an order that took the names of Ralph Nader and his vice-presidential candidate off of the ballots, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed your decision and said that your interpretation of state law was unconstitutional. Actually, they went even further and said that your interpretation led to an absurd result. Again, why should we as citizens, trust your judgment when it comes to interpreting the Constitution?

Populist Party of Arkansas v. Chesterfield, 359 Ark. 58, 195 S.W.3d 354 (2004).

Quote from case:

Our own court has recognized that the right to become a candidate for public office is, under our form of government, a fundamental right, which should not be in any manner curtailed without good cause. Fisher v. Taylor, 210 Ark. 380, 196 S.W.2d 217 (1946). Any law or party rule, by which this inherent right of the citizen is diminished or impaired ought always to receive a liberal construction in favor of the citizen desiring to exercise the right. Id.

Statutes are not only presumed to be constitutional, but a court must construe a statute as constitutional if at all possible. Bunch v. State, 344 Ark. 730, 43 S.W.3d 132 (2001). As the Supreme Court has recognized, trial courts cannot impose a restriction that denies a group their right to associate or denies them access to the ballot unless narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 94 S. Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974).

Here, the manner in which the trial court's interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 7-8-302(5)(B) leads not only to an absurd result, but also renders the provision unconstitutional. This unconstitutional reading of the petitioning provision at issue infringes upon one of the fundamental civil liberties of our democracy, that of the secret ballot. Anderson, 664 F.2d 600. In sum, section Ark. Code Ann. § 7-8-302(5)(B) does not state that an electorate name “their” candidate for President or Vice President. The statute only requires that the signer of the petition state their desire that the named candidates appear on the ballot.

Populist Party of Arkansas v. Chesterfield, 359 Ark. 58, 66, 195 S.W.3d 354, 359 (2004).

Your website also says that you have a Master of Judicial Studies. I understand that the Judicial Studies Degree provides a formal academic setting in which trial judges or juvenile and family court judges can integrate technical studies of the judiciary with more academic ones in an effort to provide an intellectual assessment of the role of the American judiciary. But I did not see a statement on your page that describes your judicial philosophy. Can you explain your judicial philosophy to me?

For a Limited Time Only: Getting While They Can

Local and state governments are scrambling to get their “share” of tax payer money while the getting still seems possible.
Here in Arkansas local school districts are seeking millage increases, city councils are proposing local A & P Taxes (Advertising & Tourism Promotion tax) and municipalities are requesting sales tax boosts to build sports complexes; taxpayers are now being bombed with a steady rain of requests to shell out more “for the greater good” in different areas of our state.
My belief is that local and state governments are well aware of the tax tsunami building on the federal level and want to make sure they get their portion while it’s even remotely possible.
Imagine your own paycheck. Now visualize another nickel removed here, and another dime taken there, each and every month being siphoned away. Talk about being nickled and dimed to death. Arkansas is already one of the most heavily taxed states in the union. Every man woman and child breathing in our state today owes $4,305 in state and local debt alone. Not to mention the fact Arkansas is 12th among states growing in its debt. Which means for Arkansans our “tax free day” is not May 31st like some
would have you believe but it is actually July 29th, more than half way through the year!

Friends we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a BIG spending problem-

The Arkansas Primary is just over a month away on May 18th. We have tons of folks (candidates) running around getting their message out of what THEY promise to do if elected. My thought is what will they NOT do if elected? Will they NOT raise taxes? Will they NOT spend more than we take in? Will they NOT put my children and theirs in further economic bondage?
Here is a simple way to tell if those running for office will commit to fiscal responsibility and limited government- ask them if they have signed the American’s for Prosperity’s NO CLIMATE TAX PLEDGE?
http://www.noclimatetax.com/
There is a link on that page that will give you the opportunity to put your candidates and the already-elected officials on record saying they "oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue."
Traveling the state as a field representatives for American Majority, I meet people regularly with an earnest desire to become more proactive and involved in the political arena. American Majority Arkansas has partnered with American’s for Prosperity Arkansas to help Arkansans to do just that-become more informed, engaged and empowered. If you want to learn more attend one of our Impact Arkansas Tour stops. Join our crusade. http://americanmajority.org/arkansas/events/

Voting- Right and Responsibility

Friends-

Today is the last day to register to vote in the Arkansas Primary, May 18th. Here is what is at stake-

2 Arkansas Supreme Seats

1 US. Senate Seat

4 US Congressional Seats

To many to list Arkansas Representative seats

Myriad tax increases, ballot initiatives and referendums across the state

Please take the time to register today if you are not https://www.voterview.ar-nova.org/ TODAY!

Then make it a point to preview your ballot BEFORE you go to the polls. All county clerk offices will have ballots available for each precinct to view (some are even on line). Encourage others to do the same. Then get the message out!- Spread the word far and wide what appears on your ballot. Take the time to find out the facts of what is being asked of the voters-

For instance in Farmington, AR voters will be asked to pass a 1 cent sales tax to build a $2.4 million sports complex which the voters have already voted down. My belief is, if you consider yourself a TEA Party person or a conservative, voter integrity would insist you vote against tax increases, expansions of government and any candidate who has been a party to either, just sayin.

If you really want to make a difference, stand up for limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets~ VOTE and vote with integrity!