LaTonya Austin Honorable
Education: J.D., UALR Bowen School of Law; Bachelor’s, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville
Prior Elected Office or Public Service: Former District and Circuit Courts Special Judge; former Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Pulaski County; former Public Defender
Community Service: LaTonya is an active member of the St. Luke Baptist Church in North Little Rock, where she serves as a member of the Worship Division, as well as the Director of Community Outreach. She is a former Board Member and Secretary of the Adult Learning Alliance, a current board member of the Friends of KLRE/KUAR Public Radio, Chair of the Exalt Academy SWLR Board of Directors, a Past-President and current member of the W. Harold Flowers Law Society, an active member of the Pulaski County Bar Association, Membership Chair of the Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers, Social Action Co-Chair of LRAC of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., current member of the NLR NAACP, and Founding Board Member of Positive People Promotions, Inc. LaTonya is also involved in and supports a number of other community organizations including decARcerate, The Storybook Project, Indivisible LRCA, Progressive Arkansas Women, Arkansans for Stronger Communities, Arkansans for the Arts.
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? Host a "Questions from the Community" event where pro se litigants can come and ask general questions about the process, host Zoom hearings (possibly after hours on a specific day), create "cheat sheets" on available resources and information on the legal issue (no advice), ask questions in easy to understand terminology, assess the pro se litigant's understanding of the process along the way, appoint attorneys to assist for pro bono credit, if allowed by the rules.
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? I would require the completion of a form, similar to an Affidavit of Financial Means to look at all of the financial obligations, expenses, and income of the Defendant to determine the ability to pay. A bench card would be a good starting point, but follow up questions and brief testimony would need to be taken to get a full picture of the Defendant's ability to pay. I would consider using set days on which to hold these hearings, so that the necessary time could be taken to fully and properly address whether incarceration is warranted. This would allow Defendants to come to court more prepared to present the relevant evidence. Establishing this process may be touch-and-go, at first, but once the process is established, in time, the process would become more efficient. In order to balance the constitutional rights of the Defendants and the additional strain on Court staff, I would allow flex-time for staff to offset the additional time needed to hold these hearings.
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? Legal policy matters related to basic rights and needs such as landlord-tenant issues, custody, child support, certain criminal justice reforms, and certain civil liberties are important to me, particularly where a judge might be the best person to give testimony or examples of how these legal policy matters affect constituents. This includes suspending driver's licenses for certain offenses, as this may be a direct barrier to basic financial survival and payment of court ordered fines and fees. Of course, before consulting or appearing before the legislature, I would consult with the JDDC to make sure that I am operating within the confines of the rules.
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? I believe the role of the judiciary is to balance the needs of the safety of the community with the punishment of anyone found guilty of committing a crime. This is done by using every tool in the Court's arsenal, including but not limited to providing effective services to address the underlying issues of certain crimes, such as the lack of food, shelter, clothing, etc. In addition, collaborating with organizations that can provide key research on ways to combat criminal behavior is important. Finally, educating the public on some of the common, but obscure criminal offenses might help prevent the commission of certain crimes, which only serve to begin the cyclic trap of being "caught up" in the system.
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? (No response from candidate.)