GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING SPRING 2021

COMMITTEE: Judicial Independence Committee CHAIR: John Wester VICE-CHAIR: Kent Thomson REGENT: Larry Krantz ______

1. Action Items Requiring Board of Regents Vote ______Our committee does not require Regents’ action at this time.

2. Recent and Ongoing Projects ______The launch of the Public Education Program is the most prominent feature of our committee’s work since my last report to the Regents. Fellow Virginia (Ginny) Nelson and former Regent Kathleen Trafford continue to be the most able leaders of this project. This report is largely theirs.

For context, this project began in early 2020, when the College entered into a collaboration with the National Association of Women Judges for a two-year adult education pilot project. NAWJ had developed excellent public education materials it has been using in its Informed Voters/Fair Judges Project. Through this new collaboration, College Fellows would make presentations to adult audiences using a PowerPoint adapted, expanded and updated from the NAWJ’s existing materials. The initial goal was to have Fellow presentations in five states during Law Week 2020, and another five presentations during Constitution Week in September 2020. Fellows in Southern California, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, and Washington signed to spearhead the effort of recruiting Fellows to give the presentations and finding appropriate adult audiences to host or receive the presentations in the spring. When the COVID pandemic swept the country, live audience presentations became unrealistic.

Over the summer, Ginny and Kathleen worked with NAWJ Judicial Independence Committee Co-Chair, Justice Robin Hudson of North Carolina, and Annette Boyd Pitts, NAWJ Education Chair, to revise the PowerPoint presentation to recognize that virtual presentations might be the norm for some time to come and to expand the emphasis on the Judicial Branch and fair and impartial courts. The working group also developed additional materials to aid the Fellows who will make the presentations, including an audio annotation of the PowerPoint explaining the author’s intent for each slide, a written Presentation Overview, and a Key Planning Letter laying out the steps to be taken to identify an appropriate host or recipient audience and make

I:\DocumentServices\WEBJON\General Committee Report Form Spring 2021.docx the necessary logistical arrangements. All of the materials related to the public education program are posted on the Judicial Independence Committee page on the College’s website. (Fellow log-in is required.) The program was ready for launch by the end of August.

The revised goal planned on Fellows in ten states giving presentations in the fall of 2020, adding Iowa, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas to the mix. The continuing pandemic restrictions and the national election focus and furor frustrated Fellows’ best efforts in some states, but three excellent presentations proceeded between Constitution Day, September 17, 2020, and Election Day, November 3, 2020.

The Nuts and Bolts of the Public Education Program

The Task Force’s research revealed that many good programs covering the Constitution and the judiciary are available to K-12 civic classes, but there is a paucity of adult education resources. The public education program is intended for an adult, lay audience. The target audience for this new program is a civic group, such as a Rotary Club, chamber of commerce, the League of Women Voters, or a metropolitan club; or an adult education forum, such as a community college, library, alumnae group, or lifelong learning institute.

The vehicle for the public education program is a one-hour, animated PowerPoint Presentation which includes opportunities for audience engagement. The presentation is intended to be non-partisan and ideologically neutral. It is designed to provide the audience with information about the Constitution and the Judicial Branch without advocating for any outcome or agenda other than an informed electorate that has a better understanding of the unique role of the judicial branch and the importance of fair and impartial courts. For this reason, and the fact many NAWJ members are elected to the state bench, the presentation does not refer to the College’s opposition to the popular election of judges.

The presentation has four major segments:

• the purpose, structure and supremacy of the United States Constitution and the parallel federal and state court systems;

• the distinction between the Judicial Branch and the representative branches, emphasizing how judges make their decisions, the judicial qualities that support fair and impartial courts, and the methods by which judges are held accountable for their decisions;

• the considerations and characteristics most important in selecting judges, recognizing that judges often must make difficult and unpopular decisions that are necessary to protect fundamental minority rights, and acknowledging the alternative processes for selecting state court judges; and

I:\DocumentServices\WEBJON\General Committee Report Form Spring 2021.docx

• recent state legislative assaults on the judiciary by attempts to limit the role or independence of the courts, often in retaliation for an unpopular decision.

Immediate Past-President Doug Young reviewed the inaugural presentation recording and declared it to be “an incredible project . . . forthright and truly outstanding,” as it is “positive, informative,” and will “move the needle” in terms of informing citizens’ understanding of the judiciary.

The presentation is intended to be given by Fellows or Fellows and Judicial Fellows, and may include a NAWJ member judge if available. The PowerPoint contains a Notes Section in which the authors suggest points that might be made in connection with a particular side and resources that will convey the message needed. For example, the notes to the slide illustrating the Parallel Federal and State Court Systems suggest that the presenter may want to explain that federal judges are appointed for life, subject to good behavior, while most state court judges are appointed or elected to fixed terms. Another suggestion is to note for the audience that over 90% of all cases filed in the country are heard in state courts. The notes to the slide illustrating how disputes are resolved through the legal process suggest that a discussion of the respective roles of the jury and judge, and the importance of jury service, would be appropriate. Fellows are encouraged to add local color about their particular state.

Lessons Learned from the Initial Presentations

The inaugural presentation of the public education program took place in San Diego, California on September 30, 2020. Ginny Nelson partnered with California state appellate court Justice Judith McConnell, a long-time NAWJ leader for the Informed Voters/Fair Judges project, to give the presentation. The host organization was the San Diego League of Women Voters. The audience ranged from attendees with little civics knowledge to a school board member with a PhD in political science. The audience evidenced its engagement with robust chat responses to questions posed during the presentation. The Zoom presentation was recorded, and then made available to the over 400 member network of the League of Women Voters as well as other persons visiting the Leagues’ website. The recording of the San Diego presentation is available on the Judicial Independence Committee webpage. (Fellow log-in is required.)

Washington Fellow Natalie Tarantino, newly inducted in 2020, joined with NAWJ Judicial Independence Committee Co-Chair, Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Stephens, on October 26, 2020, to make a presentation to a Law and Justice undergraduate class at the University of Washington. The University hosted the presentation and handled all the logistics, freeing the presenters to focus on the content itself. The professor who took in this presentation plans to make the Zoom recording of the presentation available for use in other classes.

Both the University of Washington and San Diego presentations had the added benefit of making the participating justices, who were eager to support and join in the inaugural efforts,

I:\DocumentServices\WEBJON\General Committee Report Form Spring 2021.docx more aware of the College and its meaningful, hands-on commitment to supporting judicial independence.

Kathleen Trafford and Bill Porter, the immediate past chair of the College’s Outreach Committee, gave a presentation on October 30, 2020 to an audience drawn from the staff and administrators of the largest Central Ohio provider of curriculum for the Ohio High School Equivalence Program. There was very active audience participation, particularly when the audience was asked to give examples of labels they have heard ascribed to judges and to describe the characteristics they would look for in a judge. This presentation also used the Zoom platform, but with this twist: Bill’s law firm hosted the presentation, and Bill and Kathleen were together as a panel – properly masked and spaced six feet apart. The presentation was recorded and made available to the organization to show to adults, 22 years or older, seeking to obtain an HSE diploma.

There are several takeaways from these initial presentations. The presentation materials are user-friendly. All presenters agreed that minimal independent preparation is required once the presenter reviews the PowerPoint and Notes. A wide range of audiences have received these opening presentations, which can be adapted to the sophistication of the audience. If a Fellow does the presentation once, he or she will want to do it again. It is a personally rewarding experience that entails a disproportionately modest investment of a Fellow’s time.

Plans for 2021

Planning for the second year of the pilot project is now underway. Updated materials are already available. The goal is to have presentations in 10 states in early May, as part of the traditional Law Week celebration, and another 10 presentations in the fall when Constitution Day is celebrated. The targeted states will include the 10 states which offered or deferred presentations in 2020, and 10 new states: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia. To be sure, the Judicial Independence Committee encourages Fellows in any state who want to give the presentation to do so. It is important to begin the outreach to potential audiences as soon as possible because many civic organizations and educational institutions plan and schedule their programming months in advance.

At the conclusion of the 2021 presentations, the College Leadership will evaluate the adult education program in terms of its benefit to the public, its advancing the mission of the College, and the Fellows’ commitment to and support of the program.

3. Upcoming and Proposed Projects

______Soon after the committee organized, we formed a rapid-response team to engage promptly the attacks on the judiciary that come at any time. This subject was central to our Fall 2020 report to the Regents. Kent and I have chosen the December 2020 episode in , described

I:\DocumentServices\WEBJON\General Committee Report Form Spring 2021.docx below, to illustrate our committee’s “upcoming” project. The chair of the state committee followed the college protocol for this process.

4. Brief Description of Activities for Inclusion in the eBulletin

______Wisconsin Supreme Court – December 2020

Ralph Weber, state chair of the Wisconsin Fellows, brought to our attention an attack on the , following its ruling in four cases against President and his allies in their bid to overturn election results. In the wake of those decisions, Justices , and Jill Karofsky faced harassing messages and threats. Justices Dallet and Karofsky were subjected to a wave of anti-Semitic comments. Justice Hagedorn joined three liberals on the court in the series of 4‒3 decisions that went against the president and his allies. On Monday, December 28, President Trump leveled criticism at Hagedorn to his 88 million followers on Twitter. Justice Hagedorn observed in an interview: “I've got five young kids and, sure, there’s certain uncomfortableness, too, when your child asks you whether it’s OK to play in the front yard or whether they should just stay in the backyard.” In her statement, Chief Justice Roggensack acknowledged a constitutional right to “‘speak in criticism of public servants. However, no justice should be threatened or intimidated based on his or her religious beliefs,’ she said. ‘Wisconsin has a long history of protecting the right to freely worship, as well as the right to freely speak…. Threats of actual or proposed violence have no place in public discourse in a democratic society.’”

President Rodney Acker and our fellow committee members Howard Matz and Nancy Gertner offered valuable insights in evaluating and answering this attack on the Wisconsin Justices. Attached is the letter of January 4, 2021 from Ralph Weber to Chief Justice Roggensack.

2021 01 04 Signed Letter on LH.pdf In addition, Ralph shared the following with me.

And even if we changed no hearts, let’s recall Dr. King’s insight that the silence of our friends causes more pain than the words of our enemies.

If my children feared playing in the front yard because of something I did as a judge (especially in the wake of Judge Salas’s son’s murder), I would hope that those groups dedicated to preserving our justice system would stand up and speak out.

I:\DocumentServices\WEBJON\General Committee Report Form Spring 2021.docx

5. Additional Information or Requests

______Kathleen Trafford asked to add FACTL Natalie Tarantino to the Committee on Judicial Independence. At Regent Mona Duckett’s suggestion, Ginny Nelson recruited Natalie to give a presentation last fall together with WA Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Stephens. Natalie, a 2020 inductee, pulled the program together on very short notice and gave an excellent presentation. We are pleased to welcome Natalie to our committee.

I:\DocumentServices\WEBJON\General Committee Report Form Spring 2021.docx