The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
Karen Baker was leading fellow Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Justice Rhonda Wood early Wednesday to become the high court’s new chief justice.
Unofficial returns from the Arkansas Secretary of State’s office, with 93% of votes counted, showed:
- Baker — 528,104 (52.5%)
- Wood — 477,201 (47.5%)
“I’m very pleased with the way things look at this point,” Baker said in an interview just before midnight. “I trust the voters of Arkansas and always have. This shows the public does want judges to be nonpartisan.”
No matter who won, Arkansas would have its first elected female chief justice.
Betty Dickey became the first woman to hold the seat when she was appointed interim chief justice in 2003 by then-Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Baker has been on the Supreme Court since 2011 and a jurist for almost 30 years, starting as a circuit judge in Pulaski County in 1995.
Wood became an associate justice in 2015 and will remain on the bench to fill out her eight-year term, which started in 2022.
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders will appoint a replacement to fill Baker’s position who will serve until the next election.
The chief justice sets the court’s calendar and budget meetings and is administrator of the state’s court system. The Supreme Court has a $53 million budget and more than 400 employees.
Arkansas Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice, are elected by voters in nonpartisan elections and serve staggered terms of eight years.
The chief justice’s current annual salary is $219,902. The other six justices are paid $203,625 a year.
If Baker is the ultimate winner, she will take office in January, replacing retiring Chief Justice John Dan Kemp.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
The campaign
Baker and Wood led a four-person race for the chief justice position in March’s primary with Baker leading Wood by less than a percentage point.
Wood outraised and outspent Baker during the campaign, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state Ethics Commission.
As of Nov. 1, Wood reported $254,313 in contributions and $100,000 in loans and spending $340,313.
Baker reported $21,086 in contributions and $13,200 in loans and spending $14,823.
While nonpartisan judicial races rarely feature the sharp policy exchanges typical of partisan campaigns, a late summer decision embroiled the Supreme Court in controversy.
A legal dispute over the release of Justice Courtney Hudson’s emails culminated with the justices referring one another to the court’s disciplinary tribunal.
Baker and Wood are part of the court’s conservative majority, but their written opinions in the email case diverged sharply.
Hudson sued in August to stop the release of emails between her and a former court employee that a journalist had sought under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
Wood and four other justices snatched the case away from the circuit court; ordered emails sent to Hudson, but not from her, made public; and referred Hudson and her attorney to their respective disciplinary commissions for “flagrant breaches of confidentiality” by filing emails of other justices into evidence in the lawsuit.
At odds over email and abortion rulings, Arkansas Supreme Court justices seek chief justice post
In a harsh dissent release a couple of days after the majority opinion, Baker criticized her colleagues for “an unprecedented misuse of our authority” and demonstrating “a fundamental misunderstanding” of the state Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA clearly exempts all correspondence to and from Supreme Court justices and court employees from public disclosure, she said in her dissent.
“The majority has, once again, chosen to liberate itself from the shackles of our longstanding precedent and the plain language of statutory law in order to reach a particular result. Consequently, I believe that the majority has breached public trust. Therefore, I refer the majority to the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission for investigation.”
Hudson and her attorney later released the emails that had been requested by the journalist.
Last month, Wood described the public spat over the emails as unfortunate and said the episode “damaged the public’s confidence in the court.”
“Sure, it’s damaged the court’s credibility,” Baker said in an interview. “It was embarrassing. Five members didn’t understand the FOIA.”
Baker said she was stunned that the majority referred Hudson and her lawyer to discipline and was completely surprised by her colleagues’ actions.
Wood said it was “disappointing people are focusing” on the emails case.
Nevertheless, she said she believes the court can return to normal once the winner takes office.
“I think we’ll go back to doing things the way we have,” Wood said, noting that “both of us are still going to be on the court.”
“I hope we can start rebuilding in January,” Baker said.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.