League of Women Voters of Blount County 2006 Candidate Survey
Name ______Mike Gallegos ______________________________983-9389____________________
Candidate for _______General Sessions Judge, Division I__________________________________
Please
write your answers in the space provided or use a separate sheet, and return
your survey in the enclosed stamped envelope. It is very important that you
write legibly. Please consider
e-mailing your completed survey by requesting an electronic survey at rderycke@bellsouth.net
The
League of Women Voters will acknowledge receipt of your completed survey.
I. Qualifications and experience:
A. Please list your diplomas
and degrees, along with the areas of study.
Bachelor of Arts, Dual major, Geography and
Political Science,
Doctorate of Jurisprudence,
B. What relevant experience do
you have, including previous public offices held?
11 ˝ years as a practicing attorney, with over the
last 9 years as an Assistant District Attorney, prosecuting felony and
misdemeanor cases in General Sessions and Circuit Court.
C. Please list local service
and civic groups in which you have participated, including when and for how
long.
Member of
Boy Scouts of
Guest Instructor,
Guest Instructor,
Instructor, Blount County Law
Enforcement In-service training
Supporter, Blount Nurses for Health
Education
D. Please indicate any business
activities that could constitute a conflict of interest in the event you are
elected.
None
E.
Name three
leadership skills that you practice.
1. __Accountability___________________________________
2. __Fairness__________________________________________
3. __Impartiality________________________________________
F. What
unique qualities, besides the above leadership skills, do you have to
contribute to this office?
For
the past nine years, on an almost daily basis, I have been in court and have
handled thousands of criminal cases. In
my duty as a Prosecutor for the State of
My
entire adult life has been committed to public service, as an enlisted man in
the U.S. Navy Reserve, to my service to the State of
II. Questions about your understanding of the office you
are seeking:
- What do you see as the
three most important functions of this office?
1. ___Maintain a high level of integrity, so as to instill public confidence in our legal system.
2. __ Treat litigants fairly and impartially, regardless of who they are.
3. ___Efficiently administer justice.
- What would you identify
as the three
most important issues facing
Canon 5 (E), of the Code of Judicial conduct, expressly applies to not only incumbent Judges, but to Judicial Candidates, and therefore, I yield to the determination of Blount County’s sitting Judges, and in response, adopt their following joint statement.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUDGES ISSUE STATEMENT ON QUESTIONNAIRES
Blount County Judges, W. Dale Young, D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., William R. Brewer, Jr., William Terry Denton, and David R. Duggan, have issued a joint statement pertaining to response to questionnaires which solicit the Judges' opinions on political and legal issues.
The Judges have stated that while they understand the desire of voters to be informed and to know where candidates stand on given issues, pursuant to Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, candidates for judicial office are directed not to make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office, and further they are instructed not to make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.
The Judges have noted that their personal opinions about issues should never enter into their decisions, but rather they have the duty to fairly and impartially apply the law that is made by others, be it legislators or other policymakers.
Accordingly, the Judges have indicated that in responding to any tendered questionnaires, and with respect to solicitation of their opinions on legal and political issues, the Judges with respectfully decline to publicly respond to such inquiries.
In issuing this statement, the Judges acknowledge the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which opinion holds that ethical prohibitions against a candidate for judicial office stating his or her positions on political and legal issues are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
In response to that opinion, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court has issued an Order which nevertheless declines to make any changes in the express provisions of Canon 5. Rather, the Tennessee Supreme Court has only adopted a new Comment upon that Canon. While the Court has acknowledged the White decision, it then reiterates that "Some speech restrictions are indispensable to maintaining the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary," and "The State has a compelling interest in enforcing these restrictions." Second, the Comment specifically addresses the receipt of questionnaires and warns judicial candidates to proceed with "caution" if those candidates "choose" to answer. Third, the Comment warns candidates that to take positions on issues "might constitute pledges, promises or commitments," which prohibition specifically was not addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in White.
With respect to the latter component of the new Comment, it is noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in White, has specifically held that, "there is almost no legal or political issue that is unlikely to come before a judge of an American court, state or federal, of general jurisdiction."
- What can you do in this
office to impact these three most important issues?
Canon 5 (E), of the Code of Judicial conduct, expressly applies to not only incumbent Judges, but to Judicial Candidates, and therefore, I yield to the determination of Blount County’s sitting Judges, and in response, adopt their following joint statement.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUDGES ISSUE STATEMENT ON QUESTIONNAIRES
Blount County Judges, W. Dale Young, D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., William R. Brewer, Jr., William Terry Denton, and David R. Duggan, have issued a joint statement pertaining to response to questionnaires which solicit the Judges' opinions on political and legal issues.
The Judges have stated that while they understand the desire of voters to be informed and to know where candidates stand on given issues, pursuant to Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, candidates for judicial office are directed not to make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office, and further they are instructed not to make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.
The Judges have noted that their personal opinions about issues should never enter into their decisions, but rather they have the duty to fairly and impartially apply the law that is made by others, be it legislators or other policymakers.
Accordingly, the Judges have indicated that in responding to any tendered questionnaires, and with respect to solicitation of their opinions on legal and political issues, the Judges with respectfully decline to publicly respond to such inquiries.
In issuing this statement, the Judges acknowledge the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which opinion holds that ethical prohibitions against a candidate for judicial office stating his or her positions on political and legal issues are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
In response to that opinion, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court has issued an Order which nevertheless declines to make any changes in the express provisions of Canon 5. Rather, the Tennessee Supreme Court has only adopted a new Comment upon that Canon. While the Court has acknowledged the White decision, it then reiterates that "Some speech restrictions are indispensable to maintaining the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary," and "The State has a compelling interest in enforcing these restrictions." Second, the Comment specifically addresses the receipt of questionnaires and warns judicial candidates to proceed with "caution" if those candidates "choose" to answer. Third, the Comment warns candidates that to take positions on issues "might constitute pledges, promises or commitments," which prohibition specifically was not addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in White.
With respect to the latter component of the new Comment, it is noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in White, has specifically held that, "there is almost no legal or political issue that is unlikely to come before a judge of an American court, state or federal, of general jurisdiction."
III. Positions on specific issues of importance in
A.
Means for insuring the fair and
respectful treatment of all
B.
Promotion of greater diversity in our hired and appointed government
officials and employees
C.
Reconciling the potentially competing interests of growth/development
and adequate infrastructure in our county, including the application of the
Hunter Growth Strategy
D.
The environmental impact of development and/or non-attainment status
with the EPA
E.
Identifying and resolving conflicts of interest of public officials
F.
The consolidation of:
1. city and county schools
2. city and county government
3. or a feasibility study on consolidation
G.
Health care
Canon 5 (E), of the Code of Judicial conduct, expressly applies to not only incumbent Judges, but to Judicial Candidates, and therefore, I yield to the determination of Blount County’s sitting Judges, and in response, adopt their following joint statement.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUDGES ISSUE STATEMENT ON QUESTIONNAIRES
Blount County Judges, W. Dale Young, D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., William R. Brewer, Jr., William Terry Denton, and David R. Duggan, have issued a joint statement pertaining to response to questionnaires which solicit the Judges' opinions on political and legal issues.
The Judges have stated that while they understand the desire of voters to be informed and to know where candidates stand on given issues, pursuant to Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, candidates for judicial office are directed not to make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office, and further they are instructed not to make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.
The Judges have noted that their personal opinions about issues should never enter into their decisions, but rather they have the duty to fairly and impartially apply the law that is made by others, be it legislators or other policymakers.
Accordingly, the Judges have indicated that in responding to any tendered questionnaires, and with respect to solicitation of their opinions on legal and political issues, the Judges with respectfully decline to publicly respond to such inquiries.
In issuing this statement, the Judges acknowledge the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which opinion holds that ethical prohibitions against a candidate for judicial office stating his or her positions on political and legal issues are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
In response to that opinion, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court has issued an Order which nevertheless declines to make any changes in the express provisions of Canon 5. Rather, the Tennessee Supreme Court has only adopted a new Comment upon that Canon. While the Court has acknowledged the White decision, it then reiterates that "Some speech restrictions are indispensable to maintaining the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary," and "The State has a compelling interest in enforcing these restrictions." Second, the Comment specifically addresses the receipt of questionnaires and warns judicial candidates to proceed with "caution" if those candidates "choose" to answer. Third, the Comment warns candidates that to take positions on issues "might constitute pledges, promises or commitments," which prohibition specifically was not addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in White.
With respect to the latter component of the new Comment, it is noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in White, has specifically held that, "there is almost no legal or political issue that is unlikely to come before a judge of an American court, state or federal, of general jurisdiction."
IV. Questions for
CANDIDATES FOR JUDGE: Use a separate sheet to answer
these questions.
- How can a judge improve
the safety and security of
That is primarily the responsibility of law
enforcement and the executive branch of government. However, in determining the sentence for a
defendant that has been found guilty, a judge should not only consider the
impact on the defendant, but should consider the impact the sentence has on the
safety of the community and the victim as well.
- What can be done to
ensure the safety of and respect for victims of domestic violence or other
crimes in your court?
The judge applies the law that is made by the
legislative branch of government.
However, victims’ rights should always be acknowledged and protected by
the judge during all phases of the litigation.