Ernest Sanders, Jr.
Education: J.D., University of Virginia-Charlottesville; Bachelor’s, University of Central Arkansas
Prior Elected Office or Public Service: Former Pulaski County Circuit Judge, former Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, former AR Parole Board Revocation Hearing Judge
Community Service: Little Rock NAACP, W. Harold Flowers Law Society, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Pi Lambda Chapter, Pulaski County Bar Association, Arkansas Bar Association; I have also volunteered with Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Mabevale Youth Association, Penick Boys and Girls Club, First Tee of Central Arkansas, Carver YMCA, Sherwood Optimist, Junior Deputy and Youth Director at my church.
Many Arkansans appear in court without a lawyer, particularly in landlord/tenant cases, divorce cases, and issues involving family law. In Rule 2.2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, the Arkansas Supreme Court lists ways judges can promote access to justice by self-represented (pro se) litigants. Do you have any ideas about how you would promote access to justice and be “reasonably flexible” with litigants who don't have a lawyer? Rule 2.2 lists six examples of ways that judges can be reasonably flexible. Those include making referrals to resources to assist litigants, liberally construing pleadings to help consider the issues raised, providing general information about how to proceed, using plain language to explain legal concepts, asking neutral questions to get or clarify information, changing the traditional order of taking evidence and explaining the basis for a ruling. When I served as 5th Division Circuit Court Judge, I routinely applied many of these examples in cases involving self-represented parties. Therefore, my ideas on how to be reasonably flexible with pro se parties is to continue using (and expand where possible) those examples.
Judges are Constitutionally required to conduct ability to pay hearings before imposing a jail sentence. (Bearden v. Georgia). How would you make sure these hearings are held, given that it can take time on crowded dockets to go over financial information with litigants? Would you use a bench card or other forms to help make sure litigants are only going to jail if Constitutionally eligible for incarceration for failure to pay fines? These hearing are essential and must be held, whether dockets are crowded or not. However, yes, I would utilize some sort of affidavit to be completed by the litigants that reflects his/her ability to pay and take further testimony if necessary. Arkansas currently uses similar types of documents in domestic relations cases (Affidavit of Financial Means) and criminal cases (Affidavit of Indigency) to look into litigants financial situations. So, it would not be that difficult to modify and use one of these documents for ability to pay decisions.
Rule 3.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct permits limited examples of when a judge can appear in front of or consult with the Legislature or Executive branch. Are there any legal policy matters that are important to you that would get you to consult or appear in the legislature? What about reforming the use of driver's license suspension for certain crimes? At the time of this writing, Arkansas is one of a few states who still have mandatory driver's license suspension for drug offenses unrelated to driving. Research has shown that these type suspensions are counterproductive. Without a license/transportation, it is difficult to get a job. And without a job, you can't pay your fines and court costs. However, as a judge, I have to enforce the laws that are in our code.
Crime is always an issue in our society. What, if any, do you believe is the appropriate role for the judiciary in addressing a perceived crisis in crime? The appropriate role of the judiciary in addressing any issue should be controlled and governed by the Judicial Canons, which include upholding and promoting the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
In the past several years, it's been difficult to fill jury pools. To expand jury pools in Arkansas, they have been opened to include motor registration. Do you think there should be more of an effort to include additional populations, for example, to include folks such as those who were convicted, but have now had their rights restored? Why or why not? Yes, I think expanding jury pools to include restored individuals should be considered. These are individuals who we say have "paid their debt to society." If they have done everything society has asked of them (completed their sentence, paid all fines and costs), they have been rehabilitated and should therefore be considered for jury service.