Editorial Opinion:  The 2006 Circuit Court Judge Race




Judgment as Well as Fitness of Stamm

“Between unfortunate and shameful” was the reaction of one St. Mary’s voter upon reading the Secret Letter which Circuit Court Judge Karen Abrams sent last March to Delegate Joe Vallario for herself and Judge Mike Stamm seeking to kill Senator Roy Dyson’s bill that would have extended voting rights to more than 8,000 county voters and 450,000 voters statewide now barred from casting ballots in primary elections for circuit court judge because they are independents—not Republicans or Democrats. 

The letter as well as Abrams’ and Stamm’s subsequent statements about it make clear that the two placed their own interests ahead of the voting rights of almost 20% of the voters.  

Since publication of the unedited Secret Letter in this newspaper last week, Abrams has provided misleading and factually incorrect justifications for its content.  Most egregious is her representation that Maryland’s Circuit Court judges had only last minute notice of the bill and thus her letter was an appropriate response to new legislation.  In fact, in 2005 and 2006 representatives of the Conference of Circuit Court Judges testified before Senate and House committees, including hearings specifically considering Senator Dyson’s bill.

Of  note, also testifying was Chief Judge Robert Bell of the Court of Appeals, Maryland’s highest court. 

Judge Bell testified in favor of including unaffiliated voters in the circuit court primaries and he should be miffed that his subordinate judges did an end run around him. This newspaper supported Abrams in her 2004 election campaign, but her actions in this matter are inappropriate and disappointing.  She should confine her activities to judging the cases before her as did her predecessors, Judges John Hanson Briscoe and Marvin Kaminetz, neither of whom ever engaged in political activities that called into public question their judgment, values or priorities.

While Judge Abrams has been trying to defuse her letter, Judge Stamm has been trying to distance himself from it.  However, he has not been any more successful than Abrams.  Stamm’s best argument- that the bill should not have been applied to this year’s election- was undercut by both of his opponents, lawyers Shane Mattingly and George Sparling, who had endorsed the Dyson bill long before the Secret Letter became public.

This episode reveals the seamy side of politics in which judges successfully sought favorable action on legislation beneficial to themselves but not beneficial to the public by appealing to a legislator/lawyer who appears before them in court.  In the sunshine of public scrutiny, the letter and the judges’ comments have done an even greater disservice than denying a significant number of voters from participation in the judicial primary election.  They have engaged in actions which legitimately have served to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. 

The whole affair has the smell of backroom politics and good old boy government.  It’s a smell that the voters should remember on Election Day.