Let's Get Real On Candidate Quality
TOPICS DISCUSSED
School Boards and Kitty Litter
Candidate Quality and Concerns
Justice Michelle Keller on Judicial Ethics and Elections
Outside of Politics: Furniture
Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To become a financial supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, subscribe to our Premium content on Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, purchase a copy of our books, Now What? How to Move Forward When We’re Divided (About Basically Everything) and I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles.
Sign up for our newsletter to keep up with all our news. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our store or visit our merchandise partners: TeePublic, Stealth Steel Designs, and Desert Studio Jewelry. Gift a personalized message from Sarah and Beth through Cameo. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.
EPISODE RESOURCES
We’re counting down to our 7th Birthday! Share 7 Things You’ve Learned from Pantsuit Politics and leave us a 5 star review on your favorite podcast player. Let us know and enter our Time Capsule Giveaway and get digital birthday presents to celebrate with us!
The education and disillusionment of a young Texas reporter in D.C. (The Texas Tribune)
The Problem of Marjorie Taylor Greene (The New York Times)
Keller for Kentucky Supreme Court (Michelle Keller Website)
Furrygate: A Litterbox of Lies (The Bulwark)
TRANSCRIPT
Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.
Beth [00:00:08] And this is Beth Silvers.
Sarah [00:00:10] Thank you for joining us for Pantsuit Politics. Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We are in the midst of peak campaign season as the midterms rapidly approach. And we have been talking about many aspects of the campaigns we see in our own neighborhoods and across the country. And today, what we're going to talk about is candidate quality. Beth has had some interactions we're going to talk about in the first segment of the show, and then we're going to share her conversation with our Kentucky Supreme Court Justice, Michelle Keller, in the main segment of the show. And then at the end of the episode, we're going to talk about furniture and home decor, which is my absolute most favorite topic in the world. We hope you'll stick around and join us for that.
Beth [00:01:07] It's funny, I think candidate quality as an expression is one of Mitch McConnell's biggest gifts to all of us, because it really does capture a lot of the dynamics that we're trying to navigate in this episode. But before we get to all of that, we are still counting down to our seventh birthday, and we are truly touched by your participation in our ongoing birthday party. We hope that you're enjoying the party favors that you get every time you complete one of our challenges and fill out the form to enter to win a Pantsuit Politics time capsule. Today, the challenge is this: We are five episodes out from our birthday and we would like to invite you to leave a five star review for pantsuit politics in your podcast player of Choice. Those reviews, even if you've left them before staying fresh, really do a lot to tell the algorithms that a podcast is interesting to people and is something that folks who haven't listened before should check out. So you're doing us a huge service when you leave that five star review and we are very grateful. We'll put the link in the show notes for you to go just fill out a quick form to tell us that you did it. You'll get another entry in that time capsule contest and some digital party favors from us.
Sarah [00:02:16] Up next, our conversation about candidate quality. Election Day is rapidly approaching and we, here at Pantsuit Politics are trying to shake off our election malaise. We talked about the quality of the debates in the campaigns earlier this week and today we'd like to talk about the quality of the candidates themselves. From school board to Senate, we're noticing a certain amount of defiance. Is that the right word for it, Beth?
Beth [00:02:48] I think defiance is one of the many right words for it.
Sarah [00:02:53] When candidates are confronted with either their own ignorance or rule breaking. And we wanted to talk about that today. And we're going to start with a hyper local-- well, I don't know if it's hyperlocal because it seems to be a national trend.
Beth [00:03:06] Is anything hyperlocal this cycle? That's the problem.
Sarah [00:03:10] Right. It's a hyperlocal race which no one wants to acknowledge, which are school board candidates. And we're seeing school board candidates and some candidates for higher office being consumed by this-- cannot emphasize enough-- completely manufactured lie. Let me say that again. Completely manufactured lie that students in high schools are identifying as cats and that high schools have installed litter boxes to accommodate these new identities. Beth, when you told me about this, I was appalled and then I read about it. And then I asked my husband, who's a school board attorney, he's like, "Oh, yeah. I heard somebody say that it definitely was happening at a school in Northern Kentucky," which I have to believe is the candidate you heard talking about this.
Beth [00:03:56] We have a candidate for the state legislature-- who will be a state legislator, she is unopposed-- who is talking about this. And what I have heard is that she was offered the opportunity to come see the school herself and declined.
Sarah [00:04:11] That part makes me want to scream. It's Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan (we'll link to a story in The Bulwark) where they really tried to trace down where it started. Is it true? It's not true, obviously. Who in their right mind thinks that high schools are out there letting students use litter boxes? I'm pretty sure that would violate some laws with regards to the janitorial staff on just the most basic pragmatic level. I can't.
Beth [00:04:42] When we signed up to be substitute teachers, as Omicron was raging and our schools were begging for help, we had to sit through a number of training videos, one of which was all about hazardous disposal and the steps that you take any time you encounter any kind of bodily fluid from a student. And it is intense and serious. And I think that's the first thing I wish we could make really clear. When you hear things about schools like these, you are obviously hearing from a person who has no interest in the reality of what schools actually do every day.
Sarah [00:05:21] I feel like there's a lot of candidates who have no interest in the act of everyday governing. Period. I mean, I don't think I'm breaking new ground here when I say that if the Republicans do not just wipe the floor, with regards to the Senate in the House, it is because of their quality of candidates they have selected, particularly in the Senate. These are people who are not serious, who do not seriously comprehend, understand or have the experience to govern. It's not just running, it's not just showing up on Fox News, it's governing. Although, according to that profile in The New York Times of Marjorie Taylor Greene, it is. It is just walking around being a media darling and not even having the placements on committees to do the governing for your constituents. It's just all media all the time, which I think is such an interesting paradox because part of the reason we got here is the total and complete rejection of accountability through the media. So it's this weird situation where you have candidates saying "You're biased. I'm not responding," and also spending all their time courting another type of media. What a weird, weird, paradox we found ourselves in.
Beth [00:06:50] And I don't know what to do about it except just watch it play out, because I do think especially examples like this kitty litter nonsense really alienate people who are otherwise inclined to vote for Republicans. There are enough people in local government positions in schools who see how strange this is and how completely detached from reality is, and who do not appreciate being referred to as groomers or deviants or otherwise abusive to children. And I just wonder if there is a tipping point to be heard any more. But this seems like we've got to be walking close to it. This is so absurd.
Sarah [00:07:37] But who else are they going to vote for in some of these races? It's like you said, it's like the candidate. Why would she take the tour of the school? She doesn't have an opponent. And even if she did, and the media and her opponents try to call her to account, she would refuse. And, look, that's spreading beyond candidates who are not qualified. We've talked about in the episode earlier this week that the Arizona gubernatorial race is not going to have any debates because the establishment candidate, the Democratic candidate, just refused. And there's a part of me that's, like, I get it. I get it. But this sense of, like, I will not engage with the voters is spreading. And, to me, it makes sense because as the Republican Party argues for anti-democratic practices, I will not respect the results of the election unless I win. I will not be held to account by the media or anybody else. Well, then why not just detach from the power of the people because that's not what you think this is based on? You don't think this is the empowerment of the official based on the votes they receive, that the power comes from the voters. You think the power comes from your ideology or your party identification?
Beth [00:08:49] I have two competing reactions to the kitty litter story. The first more emotional reaction is to just start saying to people when I hear things like this, well, like, I identify as honest. That's how I identify myself and I'm just not going to engage with this. And then the second is to try to figure out how do we have a reasonable conversation about where this is coming from? I was walking around with my daughter, Jane, this morning before the bus got here, and we were talking about that song, Somebody That I Used To Know. And it has that line, you can be addicted to a certain kind of sadness. We were talking about what a great line that is. It's such a good line. And I was trying to think about this story in connection with that lyric, because I do think that beneath the sort of rage and the herd mentality that can arise in any political movement, there is a certain kind of sadness at the root of it. And perhaps that is a generous reading of what's going on. I'm trying to figure out what is a generous reading of what's going on here. Is it a certain kind of sadness? Is there a way to meet that certain kind of sadness to say, I get that the world is changing rapidly. I get that young people are interested in and talking about things that feel like they come from another planet to you. How can we put those pieces together? And I just kind of oscillate between being so angry that I can't even get close to generosity and then really searching for what moves this forward, what gets us unstuck? Because I don't want this to be where we are from now on, where somebody can make a TikTok that goes viral and suddenly reasonable people in my community are voting for folks who espouse complete garbage.
Sarah [00:10:44] Or they're just a new house of representative member. And then when they're not anymore, they stop doing their job. I mean, there was reporting that Madison Cawthorn office has just shut down. He lost and he stopped doing it. If he was ever doing it to begin with-- you all know I'm still mad about that reporting where he said, "You really needed to have calm staff, not legislative staff." I'm still mad about that. And it wasn't exactly helped by this really great profile from the Texas Tribune of their Washington correspondent who was, like, "I can't do this anymore. I can't watch House of Representative members walk around live, streaming themselves instead of being at their committee meetings. I think Maggie made a really good point. Our community manager, she said, "I think people are just looking for an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway." And I think right now you have people who have voted Republican their whole lives and they just want the smallest reason to continue to vote Republican and not question what they've done up until this point, because that's hard. You know that. That's a hard, hard, journey. What else did I get wrong? Most people are not up for that. And that's not a character flaw. I think that's sort of the default position for most of humanity, and that's fine. I'm not even mad about it. But what scares me is that even if it gets so bad, even if it gets so bad that we have a pandemic, even if you look at Britain right now, you're watching that level of political malpractise play out.
[00:12:08] What happens when this is about the media and not the governance? What happens? And it's still you're going to see people defend Brexit and defend obvious decisions that have led to an enormous amount of bad governance and human suffering. And still people are going to cling to that with their cold, dead hands. They do not care. And that's what scares me. It's not that I think this will stay the same. There is no [Inaudible] in American politics. But I am worried about what will it take to shake loose this death grip on the Republican Party? How bad will it have to get for people to say, mm-mm, no more? I think independents and moderates get there. But even then, it's frustrating to me. It's frustrating when I see, oh, I'm concerned about inflation. I am, too. But how could you possibly think that people who have openly said they will provoke a debt ceiling crisis should they come to power? We have Republican leadership and candidates saying we will not raise the debt ceiling. And think that result, instability-- a Congress that could absolutely refuse to certify the 2024 presidential election results. And that stability you think is going to help inflation? Give me a break. Like, where is the just attention to the basics of the job-- not the media narrative. The basics of the job.
Beth [00:13:40] And I don't want to lose sight of the fact that some of that still happens, that there are serious people doing serious work all the time. I just did an episode of More To Say this week about hearing aids and about how Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Grassley have for five years worked together to get us to over-the-counter hearing aids. The cooperation among their staffs has had to be enormous to get that done. Over five years. And when I think about how much the landscape has changed and everything that's transpired from 2017 to this week when those hearing aids became available, I feel very inspired and very hopeful. When I hear a story that the response from a school administrator to a candidate accusing a high school of having litter boxes is, "I would love to walk you through that high school." I feel very inspired. There are people who take these jobs seriously, people with whom I deeply disagree on many things. I would not have huge spaces of agreement with either Elizabeth Warren or Chuck Grassley on almost anything. Those are two legislators who I don't have much in common with at all. And still, I am enormously grateful for the way they have approached aspects of their job. So I don't want to get despondent. I do look at the midterm elections and wonder what's going to be on the other side of this. Jennifer Rubin tweeted this morning from The Washington Post. You know what happened with Liz Truss, that is the Republican platform for combating inflation.
Sarah [00:15:12] Yep.
Beth [00:15:13] I don't hear an awesome response from Democrats, but I am sympathetic because I think part of it is the factors that are creating sector by sector pressure in terms of prices are very complex and some of them you can influence more than others. And that's a hard thing to brand when you have people running around talking about kitty litter. It's difficult and it's easy to get down about, and I'm trying to pull myself out of being down about it.
Sarah [00:15:42] I think that is encouraging and I do not think Chuck Grassley is where the Republican Party is right now. Sarah Longwell wrote a thing that was, like, it's been captured. It's been captured. And I think the most concerning thing for me is the quality of the candidates, because a Republican Party that had not been captured in a death march would be concerned about the electability of said candidates. And they are not. They are not. Everyone knew Herschel Walker was problematic. Everyone. Everyone knew that he would be hard to get elected. But that was not-- that's not even the most important thing inside the Republican Party. It's not even electability. It is loyalty to Donald Trump. It is loyalty to an anti-democratic approach. I would say to policy, but there's not a lot of policy behind that except for theocracy and Christian nationalism, which Marjorie Taylor Greene proudly labels herself as that. We won't to talk about how people identify. I want to talk about people who proudly identify as Christian nationalist. That's what I want to talk about. And it's like you don't even care if that might lose the election. Like, how are you not in a death march when electability is not even a concern for Senate candidates? Like that is really, really, scary.
Beth [00:17:04] But I think what's scarier is that they might be electable. We don't know yet. I mean, it is not a given that Herschel Walker loses that race in Georgia. It is not a given that Blake Masters loses in Arizona. I think J.D. Vance is more likely to win than not, even though I think Tim Ryan has been an excellent candidate in this race. We have Marjorie Taylor Greene. We have Marsha Blackburn, who I think is very unserious and becoming more so by the day. We have Ted Cruz. I really appreciated the debate clip. Again, I'm being part of the problem here. I didn't watch the whole thing. I just watched the clips. But the debate clip I saw of Valdez Demings saying how disappointing it was that Marco Rubio used to be honest about positions and what got him there and she doesn't know what happened. I thought me either, Val. How could we all get in a room and try to workshop that? Because I don't know either.
Sarah [00:18:02] Yeah, I think it is. I think it's really disturbing. And I just want to be honest with that. I think a lot of people are feeling that right now, feeling disturbed and disempowered and just frustrated and scared. And I think those are all valid feelings. I just think they're valid feelings. And all we can control is what we do on the other side of that. I think our ballot clubs are a great first step. I think having open and honest conversations about what we see with our friends and family supporting campaigns where we can be it through donations, be it through door knocking, I mean, there are a lot of tools available to us, and not giving up whatever the results are. I think that's the trap I got stuck in for much of my life. Is feeling this sense that the election results were some sort of permanent place at which we had arrived. And that's not true. Not in American politics. It's always shifting. It's always changing. We're too big. We're too decentralized. And just I have to always keep that in mind. It feels like the end of the world and that we've arrived at this place we're going to stay. But I think more than ever, we will see party control shift back and forth and shift back and forth and shift back and forth.
Beth [00:19:33] And I long for an America where that is really healthy for us, where we have two parties. We really need good competing ideas for how to govern. One thing that gives me hope that I want to be sure to mention before we wrap this conversation up is Utah, that the fact that the Democratic Party stood aside for Evan McMullin to try to put together a coalition of people who are concerned about the very issues that we've been discussing really touches me. And I'm a person who voted for Evan McMullin when he made his longshot run for president. He is where I am in a lot of places. He's probably a little more conservative than I am, but we're fairly close. And to see him put forward this campaign and not only for him to be competing with Mike Lee, but for Democrats to have said, "We're willing to not have everything we want, we're willing to be part of this coalition," gives me enormous hope. And I feel like the party isn't getting enough credit for that across the country, especially when I look at the ads in my media market that want to tie everybody to Nancy Pelosi as though she is like some demonic figure. I think what a party that is as dangerous and relentless as what you are describing, would never set out a race like this and back an independent. They would never do that. So that inspires me.
Sarah [00:21:04] Well, and that's what I hope we do learn. I hope we learn from campaigns that outperform even if they lose. There are things to learn from Tim Ryan, even if he doesn't beat J.D. Vance. There are things to learn from Val Demings, even if she doesn't beat Marco Rubio. These are states where Trump won by many, many, points. And so if they outperform the expectations, we need to take lessons from that. I don't think the lessons are they weren't progressive enough. If you outperform, you made inroads. And that's what we need to focus on and pay attention to and and lean into in the next cycle. We have a very personal and the local application of this conversation with regards to candidate experience, qualifications and overall quality. Beth, you sat down with your Supreme Court Justice for your district in Kentucky and talked about her upcoming race.
Beth [00:22:14] Yes. You're about to hear a conversation that I had with Justice Michelle Keller. It was a real honor for me to get to do this interview. I've met Justice Keller a couple of times. She is enormously respected in the legal community in Kentucky and I think has been an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. And she is being challenged by a longtime Kentucky legislator. And I got interested in this race when I started seeing his campaign signs. They're really big signs and in really big, unmistakable letters say 'A Conservative Republican'. And I was surprised to see that, because our judicial races in Kentucky are nonpartisan races. So I went to a forum this week where the candidates all spoke. I wanted to hear his views in addition to hearing hers even though I am certainly going to vote for her, I make no pretenses about being neutral here. I listen to him and he is arguing that the requirement that our judicial races be nonpartisan means nothing more than they go in the nonpartisan column on the ballot. There is no spirit of the law. There is only its letter. And that is his argument. His argument for being on the court boils down to his belief that we are in a constitutional crisis because we have a Democratic governor whom the court has recognized as having some authority.
Sarah [00:23:40] Oh, my God, as empowered by the voters who voted for him, more of them than the other guy. I just want to make that clear.
Beth [00:23:47] And no one has actually challenged the legitimacy of that particular election.
Sarah [00:23:51] No.
Beth [00:23:53] He also touts his pro-life credentials everywhere. His campaign signs more often than not have sitting on top of them a sign that says Choose Life. We see those signs with school board candidates, with state candidates. I mean, they're everywhere. But his have those as well. He authored the trigger law in Kentucky that would make abortion illegal and in fact did when the Supreme Court overturned Roe V Wade. And in this judicial forum, he favorably cited Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in the Dobbs decision about how important it is for us to construe the words of the Constitution and construe the entire idea of a right to privacy consistent with standards in place at the moment those documents were written. And so I wanted to share this race because I think-- and you'll hear me say this to Justice Keller. I think there are so many national issues, and this race is just a microcosm of them. And I wanted you to hear from her and particularly to hear how incredibly difficult it is. This goes to the conversation we were just having, how incredibly difficult it is for a qualified candidate who wants to govern responsibly, consistent with norms and ethics, to even respond to this. She is strained by what she can do because she wants to follow her oath and is being hit with all of this previously unthinkable stuff in this race. And so I think that tension is important to to shine a light on here. And I was really honored that she trusted us to have this discussion. Justice Keller, thank you for spending time with us here at Pantsuit Politics. I'm so glad to be able to talk with you.
Justice Michelle Keller [00:25:36] Thank you, Beth. I really appreciate the opportunity. I've been a fan of your podcast since it went live, and to be a guest is just kind of a thrill for me.
Beth [00:25:48] Thank you so much. Well, I'm excited to talk with you because you are in the midst of a campaign that I think is really carrying the weight of a lot of national trends. Before we talk about that, how do you think of being a judge in an elected position? Our Supreme Court districts look like a legislative model where we have a representative on the court from each region. And that is a really strange way to think about the judicial function. So how do you think about it as a sitting Justice and also as a candidate?
Justice Michelle Keller [00:26:22] I think it's complicated, and I've obviously thought a lot about this through my adult life and my legal career. I think what's really been great in Kentucky is that by our state constitution, section 117, calls for the nonpartisan election of all state court judges. So our judges at every level, from the lowest level, top court, all the way up to the supreme court are all elected. But we're all elected on a nonpartisan ballot, meaning that we don't run as Republicans or Democrats or even independents. We run as ourself based upon our qualifications and experience. I think this is such a great system, and here's why. You have appointed judges in some states. You have elected judges in some states. And states vary how they elect those judges. Some elect those judges on a partisan ballot. Some elect those judges on a combination of partisan and non partisan. Some have the straight nonpartisan like we do, and some have only appointed state judges. And I've been able to talk to colleagues across the country. And what's great about our system is that we really can, if we stick to the nonpartisan rules that judges need to follow, have a system that is able to rise above the political fray when it comes to the third branch. And that's so important because the third branch is called upon, not only to settle the day to day disputes of our citizens and commonwealth against the citizens or whatever it may be, but they're also called upon to settle disputes between the other two branches of government. And so somebody has to be the neutral arbiter of that. I mean, when I'm talking to people on the campaign trail, I say it's like I'm the referee or the ump. I'm calling the balls and the strikes and I need to not play for either team or have an allegiance to either team.
[00:28:21] And I actually think I don't want to be critical of the U.S. Supreme Court because, after all, they're the only nine bosses I really have. And they're the nine people who can grade my homework, if you will. And I have the greatest respect for the court as an institution. But our U.S. Supreme Court has come under great criticism lately because of what appears to be too many people, regardless of what side of the political aisle you're on, to be a fairly partisan political court. And I think when you think about it, it makes sense because those justices are appointed by partisan political actors. And so, of course, whatever president is in the White House, whether it be Republican or Democrat, they are going to seek out a justice that may reflect their leanings politically. I think it's just human nature and that's what happens. And so I think that at the end of the day, that's contributed to where the United States sees our Supreme Court right now. And also, these people are appointed by a lot for life. And back when the founding fathers envisioned this whole scheme of government which was, of course, miraculous that they were able to do this, people didn't live routinely into their eighties and nineties like we do today. So we literally have judges who can be appointed in their fifties and serve for 30, 35 and 40 years on this country's highest court. That's a long time to have that kind of power maybe vested in one person. So I don't mind being accountable to the voters every eight years. I think it's a healthy process. I think it's a way that I can kind of teach the voters about government and how it works and what the role of the courts is. And that's something we need to focus on today. But I am troubled by the fact that there are so many forces at work that want to take our nonpartisan elections and make them partisan as far as judges are concerned here in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Beth [00:30:36] So let's talk about that. Because when you say Nonpartisan race, I think that we are nationwide losing confidence in our ability to have those races and in the ability of the participants in those races to actually act both as candidates and elected officials in a nonpartisan way. I know because you are the Justice representing my judicial district, that your opponent has identified himself very prominently in every space as a conservative Republican. And I would love to hear from you what your response is to bringing that partisan affiliation into the nonpartisan race.
Justice Michelle Keller [00:31:13] I have several thoughts. First of all, I believe that the manner in which he's injected those principles into this race violates our code of judicial conduct. First and foremost, we have the canons of judicial conduct here in Kentucky, we've adopted them, and every judge knows what they are and knows that they need to comply with them or they could be called upon to answer before the Judicial Conduct Commission. And, interestingly, when someone runs for judge, even if they're not a judge yet, they are also held to the same code of conduct that judges are. And so it's important from an ethical standpoint that we follow the rules that Kentucky has adopted for judges and for judicial candidates. That's number one. There's also the Judicial Ethics Committee and the Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee. All three of those committees help regulate judges and attorneys behavior during judicial races. And interestingly, in my race, my opponent asked for an opinion from the Judicial Ethics Committee about what he could and couldn't do in running this race early on back in the spring, and they were very clear in their answers to him what the parameters were. And I didn't even know he had sought the opinion because whenever you seek the opinion the process of seeking it is confidential, but then when it's rendered it's made public. So when it was made public, I read it and I thought, wow, that sounds almost like my race, but I didn't know for sure.
[00:32:59] But then my opponent, we were out at an event in one of the counties and he said, "I just received this opinion from the Judicial Ethics Committee. And they've answer my questions, but I don't think I'm going to abide by what they've told me." And it was then at that point-- and that was early on, maybe April or even March-- I thought, this is going to be an interesting situation. Because I can't imagine saying in a public forum as a judicial candidate, whether you're already a sittng judge or an attorney, that you're not going to abide by what the Judicial Campaign Ethics Committee has said you need to. It just seems to me to be counter to the constitutional oath that we all take, both as lawyers and judges, to uphold the Constitution and to support the Constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to abide by the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. So I knew then that it was going to be an interesting campaign cycle, but I guess I didn't know how blatant the violations would become. It's been rather shocking to me the degree to which my opponent has brought partisan politics into our race. And not only partisan politics, but has also brought particular hot button issues into this race, which is another thing that judges and attorneys who run for judges agree not to do. So it's been interesting.
Beth [00:34:36] Yeah. So for people listening, your opponent is the author of pieces of legislation in Kentucky that restrict reproductive freedom. And that has become a focus in this race, which is so strange because most of us are accustomed to judges really dodging specific issues and telling us, "I cannot talk about anything that might come before me." And so does that put a certain amount of pressure on you in terms of how media, for example, people like me want you to respond to those issues?
Justice Michelle Keller [00:35:11] I appreciate the questions because I think the media needs to help inform the citizens of what the parameters are for judges. I always explain to people, it doesn't matter what my particular opinion is on any hot button legal issue. And the reason for that is I take an oath to apply the law to the facts of the case, whatever that case may be, and I end up where the law takes me. And sometimes that might not be a place that I particularly like. In fact, I may not. I may really dislike the result the law takes me to, and I might be able to write something in criticism or let my feelings be known, maybe it's something the legislature could change. If it's appropriate for me to do so. But sometimes you just have to, well, let it go because my personal opinion on any of these issues is not relevant. I tell people judges have to train themselves to set aside not only their personal bias and prejudice, if they have them, but also their opinions on hot button issues or questions that might come before them. If they cannot do that, then they cannot be an impartial and unbiased judge when it comes to sitting on a case that has to do with those issues. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. It's complicated and difficult to do sometimes as a human being, but it's really a pretty straightforward concept.
Beth [00:36:53] I want to go back to those violations of judicial canons, because I think that it is shocking to a citizen to hear that someone has broken a rule like that and there isn't any accountability mechanism in place. So can you help educate all of us on what accountability looks like to those ethical provisions?
Justice Michelle Keller [00:37:15] Yes. The Judicial Conduct Commission has the ability to regulate these cannons that I was talking about, our ethical canons and our ethical rules. And they are doing that. And they are attempting to actually do that in this race. There have been complaints filed-- I don't know by whom-- against my opponent for these violations. And I am aware that the Judicial Conduct Commission issued a complaint to him. Normally, that would be confidential. The reason I'm aware is, instead of responding to that, he chose to sue the Conduct Commission in federal court. So that's why I'm aware of that, because the federal court suit is of public record like all lawsuits are. So that's where that currently stands. And I don't know if the Judicial Conduct Commission will be able to move forward. I don't know where this is. I know it's being heard in front of one of the federal judges in Lexington. I'm not following it procedurally because right now time is of the essence for me and I'm just trying to do my day job and to run the campaign on the side, so to speak. I'm full time Justice on the court and it's a demanding job and it should be a demanding job. So I don't know where the federal suit is. But at some point, I believe that my opponent will have to answer to the Judicial Conduct Commission about these issues. I fear, though, that that answer will happen after the end of the campaign. So that's frustrating because if something can affect the outcome of a campaign and there's no accountability prior to election day, it's frustrating. And even if my opponent hadn't sued the commission in federal court, it's still a lengthy process that maybe we need to take a look at in Kentucky and see if we can shore that up and shorten that, or at least give some emergency relief measures and some powers to the Conduct Commission to act more swiftly. Because this isn't the first time that a candidate has allegedly broken the rules of campaign conduct, so I don't think it will be the last. So I think it's something we need to look at as far as can we give some teeth, if you will, to our rules of ethics that are a little bit more swiftly enforced when a campaign is in full blown campaign season?
Beth [00:39:54] It's frustrating. It's also somewhat reflective of the enormous trust and power that we invest in judges, though. You talked about the United States Supreme Court is really the only place where your homework gets graded, as you said. I love that metaphor. And so we really do have to elect people with a sense of personal integrity, because there aren't tons of ways to enforce what we expect of judges once they're in office.
Justice Michelle Keller [00:40:21] I think that's a great point. I say a lot of times when I'm on the campaign trail, when you put a black robe on someone at any level, whether it be the lowest level trial court up to the state Supreme Court, all the way up through the federal court system to the United States Supreme Court, you are investing that person with a tremendous amount of power over the lives of everyday people. And it's ironic because the everyday Kentuckian probably doesn't know how many members are on the Kentucky Supreme Court and exactly how it is we do our work and all those ins and outs, but they sort of get tuned in when there's a decision that might affect millions of Kentuckians, which does happen, or they'll get tuned in if it's their own particular case. So by and large, a lot of people don't even know who the judges are. But judges possess a tremendous amount of power and power over people's lives. I mean, for instance, in the criminal context, literally here in Kentucky we're still a death penalty state. So a lot of power is invested in us. The Kentucky Supreme Court hears a lot of criminal cases because our Constitution says that if you're incarcerated for 20 years or more and of cours that would include a death penalty case, you have an automatic right of appeal to our court. And so there's a lot of criminal cases that we hear and we realize that-- my colleagues and I-- that that's a tremendous amount of power over the life and liberty of people. So you need to have the experience and qualifications to understand the law and what you're doing. But first and foremost, the integrity that goes with having the experience is equally important because literally we have people's lives in our hands.
Beth [00:42:21] So I talked about national trends in your race. We've talked about extreme partisanship and the injection of reproductive freedom as a central issue. This sort of view of institutions is only being relevant if we agree with them, I think is a national trend that you're experiencing. The other issue that is coming up in your race is sort of transparency around campaign finance. And I would love to hear you talk a little bit about where that's coming up and how you think about it as a candidate.
Justice Michelle Keller [00:42:54] It's so frustrating. First of all, our campaign KREF it's known as Kentucky Registry of Election Finance. Everybody who files to run for office sets up an account as a candidate and must make certain reports according to law of all their donors and information about their donors. And we have to do it on a very specific time frame, and we all agree to do that, actually under penalty of perjury and criminal penalty. And I've taken that seriously every single time I've run. It seems to me like my opponent and others have not taken that as seriously by failing to file their reports on time and some not filing at all until they're called on the carpet to do so. There should be transparency in campaign finance for all campaigns and all candidates. I think it's so important in the judiciary, though, for all the reasons that we've already discussed, if we really want to have a nonpartisan judiciary, people ought to be able to look up Michelle Keller, which they can, and see where my donations came from. And it's even kind of feels icky sometimes as a judge to even have to get donations, but there's no way to run a campaign without money. And it would be also wrong to only have extremely wealthy people be able to be judges who can self-finance. So there's no alternative. You have to raise money. But I take seriously the reporting requirements. And if you look at my report, I've raised money from about 620 different Kentuckians and there's a few donations for people out of state. They're my family and friends who live out of state. So now we have this situation, it was announced last week, $375,000 worth of ads were dropped for my opponent, what they kind of refer to as dark money, difficult to trace, not really sure who's behind it. It appears from what people tell me it's from definitely outside of Kentucky, but from Illinois.
[00:45:09] So you have to ask yourself, why do people in Illinois want to control who the judges are in Kentucky? It seems to me like everybody can understand that that doesn't sound like a good situation. And so when you compare my campaign finance, for instance, of raising almost $300,000 to date, which has just really kind of blown me away because that's more money than I've ever raised before. And we've worked hard at doing that and doing it in the way that is ethically the way judges must raise money. But I've raised that much money from well over 600 donors. And when my opponent had those ads dropped for him by this out-of-state group, I think he had about $19,000 on hand from a handful of people, including a lot of partisan political officeholders. So I feel good about who my donors are and the amount of money we raised. But if outside special interest groups get too heavily involved in any race, but certainly judicial races, that's really, really, worrisome because then we lose all the ability for judges to be accountable in that way. And just like I said before, Beth, we're the third branch. We're the check in the check and balance. How can we be the check in the check and balance if we just become partisan political actors? So I think it's crucial and I don't know what we can do about it because once the United States Supreme Court rendered some of the opinions that they've rendered, like Citizens United and other major opinions of the United States Supreme Court, it sort of allowed this practice to take hold. And so I've just tried to run a race that's completely transparent, filed all my reports on time with all of the information that's required. And I'm proud of the fact that we have so many Kentuckians who not only support us in many ways, but have also stepped up to support us financially. But I think any Kentuckians should ask themselves why some group outside of the Commonwealth of Kentucky wants to influence our judicial elections.
Beth [00:47:38] Well, I know this campaign has been incredibly frustrating and it has to feel strange to just be caught up in so many national trends in what should be a pretty local race. So I want to ask you, as we wrap up, what keeps you motivated? What do you love about serving on Kentucky's Supreme Court and why do you want to do it again?
Justice Michelle Keller [00:47:59] It's the greatest professional privilege I've ever had. I really could have never seen my career landing here. And it's just because of where I started. When I graduated from law school 32 years ago, you could take the number of female attorneys in my home county of Kenton and seat them around a large table at lunch. And that's what we did. We would get together for lunch and share experiences. So there's some women that came before me as trailblazers, but when I first ran for judge in 2006, only 10% of the judiciary statewide was female. That has changed greatly over the 16 years that I've been on the bench, but I'm proud of that and proud to be the first woman to hold the seat that I held on the Court of Appeals. And I'm proud to be the first woman to hold this seat on the Kentucky Supreme Court. That being said, gender isn't a reason to have a job. It's also not a reason not to have a job. So I do think that's an important perspective, but I also think that my experience is the most important thing that made me decide to do this again. And I'm going to be honest, as you've alluded to, we knew the political landscape has just been difficult and downright ugly the last couple of years. So we're not naive. So I sat down with my husband and my daughters and my staff and friends and talked about whether I should run again. But at the end of this term our Chief Justice John David Junior is retiring and Justice Hughes from Louisville is retiring. And they've both had long service on the bench, and I've enjoyed being their colleague. When they retire, I'll be the most experienced justice on the Kentucky Supreme Court by about five years. And so I felt just from an experience standpoint, it was not the time to step down.
[00:49:59] And, secondly, I knew that this movement was afoot because there were members in the legislative branch that had been very bold about saying they wanted to take over the courts. And so I felt that that would never be a good day when one branch wants to take over another. In fact, I would describe that as anarchy. So I was there. I was in the position, I have the experience, I love the job, and I felt like it was the time to try to keep the job now more than ever. And so we decided together as a family we would do that. Now that being said, we're human, and so we have our limit of stress and things that we can endure. And we've sort of hit that limit, each one of us, in our own way, at different times during this journey. But I believe in the rule of law. I believe in democracy. And I believe so fervently that the third branch is so important to maintaining the rule of law and democracy, both here at home in Kentucky and across the nation, that it just seemed to be a calling that I could not walk away from. And so literally, that's why we're doing it again. And I will say, though, on a personal note, the election is three weeks from tomorrow, and I can't wait for that to come because it's a lot. It's been a lot.
Beth [00:51:34] Well, Justice Keller, I appreciate your service to the state and to our district. And it is really an honor to have you here at Pantsuit Politics. Thank you for spending some time with me.
Justice Michelle Keller [00:51:44] Thank you, Beth. You take care.
Beth [00:51:46] You, too. I just want to thank Justice Keller again for her time. And I'm happy to answer any questions that people in the audience have about this race. And I hope that this was helpful beyond Kentucky, because I do think these are the dynamics that lots of candidates are navigating throughout the country.
Sarah [00:52:12] Beth, you recently got a question from a listener on Dear Beth about a kitchen table. She had a kitchen table that was functional but that she hated. And you answered with your approach to furniture and we're having a conversation here because my approach is, not surprisingly, very different.
Beth [00:52:30] This listener was considering investing in a new table and having some struggle with her husband about that. His approach was let's keep this table that we hate until the kids are old enough to not ruin a new table. And I disagree with that approach. And I told her what I would do is look for a medium table. A table that you like but that is not the highest end of high end furniture, because I want to live in a house that we can live in. I don't want to be precious about the things in our home. And so I said find something that you like, but that is not your forever table. Get through this period. Don't suffer, but don't maybe go to the place hat you really want to ultimately be if it is going to make you miserable to have the nice thing while you still have small children in your house. So medium is my approach here.
Sarah [00:53:18] I have really shifted my approach to this over the years. I think I've begun to approach furniture like I approach clothes. I think we have this idea that the more we pay for something the sort of more precious we'll treat it and the more precious we have to treat it. And what I have learned from clothes and furniture is, no, the more you invest, the longer they last. They're up for the challenge. The high end stuff is up for the challenge, be it a really, really, nice sweater. That, in my experience, the nicer clothes, the better quality I buy, the less likely they are to stain or pull or any of those things that can destroy clothes. Same for furniture. So when I just suck it up and buy the nicer stuff, I don't feel like in the end I'm precious about it because it holds up better. Obviously, never would I live with the table I hate. My husband and I have had this conversation and I hear his argument and then respectfully buy the furniture anyway because he doesn't care. It doesn't bother him. It bothers me. I don't want to look at something I hate to look at in my own home. I am so visual and-- I don't know [Inaudible] affected by my furniture, don't judge, that I could not possibly do the whole table I hate situation even though I have three boys. But I am learning slowly that when I just suck it up and buy the nice stuff I want to buy, it just last longer, it does better, it holds up better, and I don't have to be precious about it-- which is what I think I thought I would have to do for years around furniture for sure.
Beth [00:54:59] I think there's some truth in that for sure. And I also think you can still scratch a really nice car. There are things that can still happen. And I live with a person who is extremely sensitive to the condition of the things around him, especially depending on the price tag. He does not like a dent. He doesn't like a scratch. He wants things to be pristine if we have invested in them. And so I think that's where my moderation comes in. Medium furniture for the medium term. And then eventually we'll get to the place where we can have the things that we are really, really, excited about having. I don't have any objection to your approach at all. It's just not the one that I have taken for this moment in my life because Chad and I are bothered by different things.
Sarah [00:55:42] I'm slowly subbing everything out. I just replaced my kitchen chairs. I had four cloth chairs from way back in the day when we first moved to Washington, DC. And I have five people in my family, so that was the first problem. Four chairs and five people-- and they are cloth. Now I do not recommend, however high quality they are, cloth dining chairs when you have small children. They're brown now and they've held up a little bit better, it's like some brown fabric on them, but still just gray spots and stuff. So I just bought some really nice black wooden chairs from Pottery Barn that I am delighted with. A couple of years ago I bought two sofas from Wayfair and I regret it. I bought the sort of medium or affordable sofas and they do not hold up. The fabric is peeling. I had to have a leg repaired because they're not well-made. I wish I had just sucked it up and paid for nicer sofas. Although that being said, I have an IKEA sectional that is 11-years -old. I've replaced the slipcover once. It is a dream. I love it. It's the best sofa ever. So it's sort of hit and miss with some of that stuff. But I had like an Amazon headboard. I invested in a nice bed from Article. I've just sort of slowly been, like, it's tough. It's really funny. My friend Elizabeth was working on a project and she's, like, "Should I buy this piece from Facebook and paint it?" And I was like, "Sister, we are too old for that." I am past that. I'm not refinishing things anymore. I'm not DIYing things anymore. I'm in my forties. I'm just going to shell out the money for the nice stuff because I don't want to do that kind of stuff anymore. And she was, like, "You're right, I don't have time to pay anything." I'm like, "Of course you don't. You have five kids. Of course you don't have time to paint anything. I don't either."
Beth [00:57:20] I don't have the talent either. I'm just not good at it. I'm really not.
Sarah [00:57:24] I'm too impatient. I do like half of it and I'm, like, I'm bored. I don't want to do this anymore.
Beth [00:57:29] The things that I really want in our house, I just have to wait until I'm willing to pay for it because I do not have the talent to try to pull it off in some way on my own.
Sarah [00:57:39] If you do-- jealous. If you have the patience and skill. That's amazing. It's not who I am. It's really never who I was. I was always impatient to take the task to completion, but I mean, listen, and also home decor is just my hobby. That's the truth. It's really not just about how I live in my home, it's that it brings me an enormous amount of joy. I recently moved my bed in my bedroom. Y'all, I thought there was only one place to put my bed in my bedroom. And there wasn't. There was another place. And when I moved it, I opened up like, truly, another room's worth of space. The joy it has brought me-- I call it big bedroom now because it just feels so much bigger. The joy big bedroom has brought me... When you do that, when you just move stuff because I really love to move and reorganize stuff already have that's my favorite. And when you can rearrange around and you're like everything is new and different, I cannot describe the high I feel in that moment. It is truly such joy, pure joy when something like that happens.
Beth [00:58:38] This has never been my hobby or my interest. I am in my home so much now that it is starting to become more important to me because I just am always here. I work here. My kids are here. We're just here all the time. And I think I'm getting a greater sense of how we use these rooms and how I want to use these rooms and what works and what doesn't work. But I am pretty patient about it. I have a pretty long view. I understand that things are still going to change a lot as the girls get older, so that's why some of those medium changes do it for me.
Sarah [00:59:10] Oh, no. I have no patience. I learned that from my mother. My mother's, like, "Everything in this room must be different tomorrow." I get that from her. It's. I come by it real honest. My favorite story is my great grandmother in her nineties was sitting with my grandmother and just reflecting and she said, "I just wish I could do one more house." And that to me is like the fullest embodiment of who the women in my family are. Looking back on her life, she was like, "You know what I wish I could do? Arrange one more house." And I feel her. I feel that profoundly.
Beth [00:59:43] So I have an opposite pull right now. I think I've realized that I like our house. I like where it is. I like our neighbors. I love our neighbors. I love our yard. We've done a lot outside to really enjoy where we live. And so I'm finding myself thinking we're probably going to be here for the foreseeable future, which makes me want to give it a name. Like, I want our home to have a name where when the girls are older, they don't just say, we're going to mom and dad's. I want them to say, we're going to fill in the blank. And so I'm working really hard on that right now.
Sarah [01:00:16] I think we found ours this morning as Nicholas and I were talking about it.
Beth [01:00:18] Did you?
Sarah [01:00:20] Well, I said, look, we live on Quail Hollow. We live in the neighborhood called The Pines. And it was built by a man named John Barry. And he's like a very well-respected builder in Paducah. When I bought this house, how many people said to me, "That's a John Berry house, you'll never have a problem with it." So I think we are settling around Quail Berry. Isn't that nice?
Beth [01:00:40] That's cute. I like it.
Sarah [01:00:42] Quail Barry. Yeah, I like it.
Beth [01:00:44] I think ours should have creek in it because there is a creek at the back of our backyard that is really lovely and I think creek would be a nice way to end it. But we haven't settled. I haven't spent a lot of time talking to Chad about this yet because he's been out of town and we need to be happy with it together. We both seem to weigh in on this because I view it as a monumental life decision for us. But I'm really invested in this idea right now.
Sarah [01:01:05] I love it. I love it. Well, thank you for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics. Thank you for continuing to celebrate our birthday with us. Please leave us a five star review and fill out the form and let us know you've done so to be entered to win our time capsule giveaway. We will be back in your ears on Tuesday. And until then, keep it nuanced y'all.
Beth [01:01:41] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director.
Sarah [01:01:46] Maggie Penton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music.
Beth [01:01:52] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.
Executive Producers (Read their own names) [01:01:57] Martha Bronitsky. Linda Daniel. Allie Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Helen Handly. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie johnson. Katina Zugenalis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Molly Kohrs. Laurie LaDow. Lilly McClure. Emily Neesley. The Pentons. Tawni Peterson. Tracy Puthof. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stiggers. Karen True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villel. Katherine Vollmer. Amy Whited.
Beth [01:02:31] Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston, Michelle Wood. Joshua Allen. Morgan McCue. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller.