>> WELCOME TO THE IDAHO
DEBATES.

A LOOK AT THE CANDIDATES ON A
GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR THE

IDAHO SUPREME COURT.

THE IDAHO DEBASE IS A
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT OF THE

IDAHO PRESS CLUB, THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS OF IDAHO, BOISE

STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC SERVICE AND IDAHO PUBLIC

TELEVISION.

THE IDAHO DEBATES ARE ALSO
BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE IDAHO
PUBLIC TELEVISION ENDOWMENT.

>> HELLO.

WELCOME TO THE IDAHO DEBATES
ARRIVE FROM THE TOYED PUBLIC

TELEVISION STUDIOS IN BOISE.

THIS IS OUR FIRST AND ONLY
DEBATE OF THE SEASON BUT IT'S A

GOOD ONE, THE ONLY TELEVISED
DEBATE WITH THE CANDIDATES VYING

TO BE THE STATE'S NEXT SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE.

A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IN IDAHO
IS ONE OF FIVE WHO WILL WORK AS

ULTIMATE AND FINAL LEGALITY
AUTHORITY IN THE STATE.

THEY HAVE THE LAST SAY IN IDAHO
LEGAL MATTERS THEIR DUTIES ARE

EXECUTION OF FAIR, IMPARTIAL
DELIBERATION AND RULINGS ON SOME

OF THE MOST DIFFICULT LEGAL
QUESTIONS IN THE STATE,

PROTECTING EQUAL ACCESS TO
JUSTICE AND PROTECTING THE

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

TONIGHT WE WELCOME TWO
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ASKING FOR

YOUR VOTE.

ROBYN BRODY HAS PRACTICED LAW IN
THE MAGIC VALLEY FOR 20 YEARS.

SHE SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF THE
5th DISTRICT IDAHO BAR

ASSOCIATION SHE GRADUATED FROM
THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER COLLEGE

OF LAW.

CURT McKENZIE GRADUATED FROM
THE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW

CENTER.

HE WORKED ONE YEAR IN THE ADA
COUNTY PROS KITING ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE AND SIX YEARS IN CIVIL
LITIGATION.

HE SERVED SEVEN TERMS IN THE
NORTH IDAHO SENATE AND WAS

PRESIDENT OF THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST ECONOMIC REGION.

ALSO ON STAGE WITH ME IS OUR
PANEL OF REPORTERS SELECTED BY

THE IDAHO PRESS CLUB.

THEY WILL ASK QUESTIONS AND
BETSY RUSSELL OF THE SPOKESMAN

REVIEW AND REBECCA BOONE OF THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS.

I'M MELISSA DAVLIN.

I'M MODERATING TONIGHT'S DEBATE
AND WILL DO MY BEST TO MAKE SURE

ALL CANDIDATES GET EQUAL TIME
AND STAY ON POINT.

TO REMIND THEM HOW LONG THEY
HAVE BEEN TALKING IS OUR

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS.

MORE FOCUS ON INTELLIGENT
DISCUSSION THAT HELPS THE VOTER

CAST A MORE INFORMED BALLOT.

EACH WILL BE GIVEN ONE MINUTE
FOR OPENING COMMENTS AND ONE FOR

CLOSE.

WE FLIPPED A COIN AND SENATOR
McKENZIE, THE HONOR GOES TO

YOU YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

I'M CURT MUCK KENZIE.

EYE BELIEVE I'M THE RIGHT
COURTHOUSE FOR ID TO SUPREME

COURT BASED ON MOI PHILOSOPHY,
BROAD WORK EXPERIENCE AND RECORD

OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

MY PHILOSOPHY IS A SIMPLE ONE.

APPLY THE CONSTITUTION AND
STATUTES AS WRITTEN.

MY EDUCATION IS ROOTED IN IDAHO
ON THE THIRD GENERATION TO GO TO

NAU.

THEN I WENT TO GEORGETOWN AND
STUDIED LAW.

FROM THERE I HAVE WORKED FOR
LARGE NATIONAL LAW FIRMS DOING

COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION.

I PROSECUTED CRIMES ON BEHALF OF
IDAHO AND HAVE HAD MY OWN

PRACTICE REPRESENTING
INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL

BUSINESSES.

I'M PROUD OF MY RECORD OF PUBLIC
SERVICE IN THE IDAHO SAID

SENATE.

IDAHO HAS A LONG TRADITION OF
JUSTICES HAVING PUBLIC SERVICE

IN THE ELECTED ARENA.

I BELIEVE IT'S AN ASSET FOR THE
COURT.

AGAIN, I'M CURT MCSEND PSI.

I'M ASKING FOR YOUR VOTE ON
NOVEMBER 8.

>> NEXT FROM ROBYN BRODY.

>> SINCE THIS RACE STARTED I
HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS IN

THE CAR.

I HAVE TRAVELED MORE THAN 28,000
MILES ACROSS THIS STATE.

PEOPLE HAVE INVITED ME INTO
THEIR POLITICAL MEETINGS, INTO

THEIR BUSINESS ROOMS, THEIR
BUSINESS BOARDROOMS, INTO THEIR

HOSPITALS, INTO THEIR CHURCHES,
LIBRARIES, THEIR HOMES.

I HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO LISTEN
TO THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

I HAVE ALSO HAD 15 CHANCE TO
TALK TO THEM AND EDUCATE THEM

ABOUT THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT.

WHAT WE DO AND WHAT WE DON'T DO.

THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT IS THE
FINAL DECISION MAKER ON THE

IDAHO CONSTITUTION.

ON IDAHO LAW.

THEY MANAGE THE SYSTEM, WE
MANAGE FOR THE ENTIRE STATE, THE

ENTIRE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

BUT WHAT WE CAN'T DO IS CHANGE
THOSE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE BY

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WASHINGTON D.C.

WE'RE IN CHARGE OF THE IDAHO
CONSTITUTION.

OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, TO HUNT,
FISH AND TAKE CARE OF VICTIMS'

RIGHTS.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THATTED IT
HO -- IDAHO CONSTITUTION AND

SUPREME COURT CAN PROTECT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THE FIRST QUESTION WILL COME
FROM REBECCA.

>> YOU SAID THAT YOU NEED TO
FOLLOW THE LAW REGARDLESS OF

PUBLIC OPINION.

SENATOR McKENZIE YOU JUST
MENTIONED YOU FAVOR A MORE TEXT

WALLIST APPROACH, APPLYING PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF LAW TO A LEGAL

QUESTION WITHOUT UNDUE REGARD
FOR THE RESULTS.

DO YOU THINK THERE'S EVER ROOM
FOR A MORE ARISTOTLE INFLUENCE

WHERE YOU MAY CONSIDER WHAT A
REASONABLE LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE

INTENDED?

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

I BELIEVE THAT QUESTION REALLY
ADDRESSES THAT FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE

OF SEPARATION OF POWER.

AND IT'S THOSE CASES WHERE YOU
TALK ABOUT WHERE A JUSTICE MAY

WANT TO DO WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS
RIGHT IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION,

THAT THEY ARE MOST LIKELY TO
WANT TO TRY AND INTERPRET THE

LANGUAGE IN A WAY THAT THEY
THINK PRODUCES THE RIGHT RESULT

EVEN IF IT DOESN'T QUITE DO
JUSTICE TO THE TEXT.

THOSE ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES I
BELIEVE IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY

IMPORTANT FOR A JUSTICE TO APPLY
THE TEXT OF WHAT'S WRITTEN AND

TO DO SO APPLYING THE LANGUAGE
AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME

THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED OR
THE STATUTE PASSED.

>> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CASE LAW
SUGGESTS A RESULT THAT WOULD BE

INELKIBLE TO THE PARTIES?

IDAHO'S CONSTITUTION MADE IT
ILLEGAL FOR MORMONS TO VOTE

UNTIL ABOUT 1882 -- 1982.

MANY OF OUR TRANSPORTATION LAWS
WERE WRITTEN BEFORE DRIVERLESS

CARS WERE CONSIDEREDAR
POSSIBILITY.

>> OUR CONSTITUTION CAN BE
AMENDED OVER TIME.

IN FACT IN IDAHO OVER 130 TIMES
THE PEOPLE HAVE GONE BACK AND

AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION.

IT'S THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO.

BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE UP TO
JUDGES.

THREE JUDGES WHICH WOULD BE A
MAJORITY ON OUR COURT, TO SET

THAT POLICY.

IT'S UP TO PEOPLE TO FIX THOSE
INEQUITIES.

OUR LEGISLATURE, WHICH IS
ELECTED TO TWO-ER TERMS IS

CLOSELY RESPONSIVE TO THE PEOPLE
THAT ELECT THEM.

THEY SET THE POLICY.

THERE ARE TIMES THEY NEED TO
CHANGE THAT LAW OR THE PEOPLE

WILL WANT TO AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND THERE'S A

PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED.

>> OKAY.

MRS. BRODY I WOULD ASK YOU THE
SAME QUESTION.

DO YOU FAVOR A TEXT TU AL
APPROACH OR DO YOU TAKE THE

APPROACH TRYING TO INTERPRET
WHAT A REASONABLE LEGISLATURE

MAY HAVE DONE OR INTENDED WHEN
THEY CREATED A LAW?

>> I THINK THE GOOD AND FAITHFUL
JUDGE LOOKS AT WHAT'S WRITTEN,

WHAT'S THERE IN PLAQUE AND
WHITE, AND EVEN WHEN IT MEANS

THAT YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESULT,
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT

LINE.

NOW, LET ME BE CLEAR, JUDGES
STILL JUDGE, AND JUDGES JUDGE

EVERY DAY EVEN SOMETIMES IN THE
STATUTES THAT ARE PASSED BY THE

LEGISLATURE.

I'M THINKING ABOUT AN ATTORNEY
FEE STATUTE IN IDAHO THAT ALLOWS

FOR JUDGES OR TELLS JUDGES THAT
THEY MAY AWARD FEES.

SO OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO BE UP
TO THE COURT TO DECIDE WHEN ARE

THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.

JUDGES ARE NOT -- WE'RE NOT AUTO
MA TONS.

WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS WITH
SIMPLE DATA IN AND DATA OUT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, JUDGES
JUDGE.

>> SO AS A FOLLOW-UP I THINK
ACTUALLY EARLIER THIS YEAR THE

IDAHO SUPREME COURT WAS REMANDED
BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TOLD

TO APPROACH THE WAY IT AWARDS
ATTORNEYS FEES DIFFERENTLY

BECAUSE APPARENTLY IT DIDN'T
JIVE WITH FEDERAL CASE LAW.

IS THERE EVER A POINT WHERE YOU
MOVE AWAY FROM THE TEXTUALISM TO

INTERPRET CASE LAW AS IT'S BEING
INTERPRETED BY OTHER JUDGES WHO

MAY TAKE A DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY
APPROACH?

>> YOU'VE ALWAYS GOT TO USE
COMMON SENSE AND BE ABLE TO

ADDRESS NEW SITUATIONS THAT THE
CONSTITUTION DIDN'T ENVISION.

CERTAINLY NO ONE, NONE OF OUR
FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED TEXT

MESSAGING AS A FORM OF
COMMUNICATION.

YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

EVEN JUSTICE SCALIA WOULD TELL
YOU YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR HEAD.

NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THAT YOU
DON'T.

BUT YOU HAVE GOT TO BE VERY
CAREFUL AND UNDERSTAND THAT AT

THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN IT
COMES TO MAKING POLICY, THAT

ROLE IS THE ROLE OF THE
LEGISLATURE IS CRITICAL AND THE

COURTS SHOULD NOT BE THE ONES
THAT SET THE POLICY FOR THE

STATE.

>> SO MRS. BRODY, THIS QUESTION
IS FOR BOTH OF YOU, IF YOU WERE

ON THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT IN
1980, TWO YEARS PRIOR TO VOTERS

REMOVING THAT CLAWS FROM THE
IDAHO CONSTITUTION THAT FORBADE

MORMONS FROM VOTING WOULD YOU
THINK IT YOUR DUTY TO ENFORCE

THAT BAN ON ITSENS WHO WERE OF
THE MORMON FAITH FROM VOTING?

>> WE LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE
PRECEDENT, COURT DECISIONS MADE

BEFORE THEN, AT THE TEXT, ALL OF
THE TOOLS THAT JUDGES HAVE IN

ORDER TO MAKE DECISIONS.

I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT I WOULD DO
THEN OR EVEN NOW IF THE ISSUE

WERE TO COME UP BECAUSE WE CAN'T
REALLY TELL PEOPLE THE POSITIONS

THAT WE WOULD TAKE ON GIVEN
ISSUES.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU
HAVE TO -- JUDGES HAVE LOTS OF

TOOLS AVAILABLE, PRECEDENT AND
TEXT.

WHAT'S THERE IN PLAQUE AND
WHITE.

AND THEY HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS AS WELL.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, SAME
QUESTION.

>> IT'S LOOKING AT THAT ISSUE,
THE DUE PROCESS CLAWS OF THE

14th AMENDMENT PROTECTS THOSE
TYPES OF RIGHTS THAT WERE

TRADITIONALLY RECOGNIZED AT THE
TIME IT WAS RATIFIED.

APPLYING IT TO THIS ISSUE ALONG
WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR

PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO VOTE AS WELL
AS TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION OF

CHOICE, I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS
LIKELY THE COURT WOULD HAVE

LOOKED AT THAT ISSUE UNDER THE
14th AND 1st AMENDMENTS OF

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND
DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS A

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT THEY
WOULD HAVE HAD AT THE TIME.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, YOU
MENTIONED ROE VERSUS WADE THAT

DEVIATED FROM YOUR JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHY.

YOU HAVE AN ENDORSEMENT FROM
IDAHO RIGHTS.

WHERE WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE
BETWEEN UPHOLDING YOUR PERSONAL

BELIEFS AND FOLLOWING THE LEGAL
OBLIGATION TO UPHOLD CASE LAW AS

IT'S BEEN SET BY THE U.S.

SUPREME COURT?

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

IT'S A JOB OF A JUSTICE TO APPLY
THE LAW.

UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF FEDERALISM
THAT INCLUDES THE DECISIONS OF

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

I'M PROUD OF THE ENDORSEMENT,
PROUD OF THE BILLS I HAVE WORKED

ON AS A STATE LEGISLATOR.

BUT I'M ALSO BOUND BY WHAT COMES
OUT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

SINCE THE 1960s, UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAWS THAT I MENTIONED,

UNDER SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
THE COURT HAS EXPANDED RIGHTS

BEYOND ENUMERATED IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.

THEY HAVE DONE SO IN A NUMBER OF
CASES AND WE ARE BOUNDS BY THOSE

DECISIONS REGARDLESS OF OUR
PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

I THINK IT'S THE ROLE OF A
JUSTICE TO APPLY THE LAW

IMPARTIALLY WITHOUT PERSONAL
BIAS.

>> MRS. BRODY, I'M CURIOUS HOW
YOU INTERPRET THIS SPECIFICALLY

IN INSTANCES WHERE FEDERAL
PRECEDENT CONFLICTS WITH THE

STATE CONSTITUTION.

>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT'S COMING

BEFORE THE COURT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS VERY
INTERESTING ABOUT IDAHO LAW IS

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE IDAHO
CONSTITUTION WE HAVE

CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE THAT IN
MANY ARENAS MAY ACTUALLY PROVIDE

GREATER RIGHTS TO LITIGANTS THAN
MAYBE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF IDAHO CAN ALWAYS PROVIDE MORE

PROTECTIONS TO THE CITIZENS OF
IDAHO THAN THE FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IF
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FEDERAL LAW

AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
THAT'S WHAT MY OPENING STATEMENT

WAS ALL ABOUT.

PEOPLE THINK THAT THE IDAHO
SUPREME COURT CAN CHANGE OR HAVE

THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY CAN
CHANGE THE DECISIONS THAT THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES MAKES.

THAT'S WHAT WE CAN'T DO.

BUT WE CAN INTERPRET OUR OWN
CONSTITUTION.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION COMES FROM
BETSY RUSSELL.

>> MRS. BRODY, SPEAKING OF
INTERPRETING OUR OWN

CONSTITUTION THAT IS OF COURSE
EXACTLY WHAT THE IDAHO SUPREME

COURT DOES.

GOVERNOR OTTER HAS SAID RECENTLY
THAT THE CURRENT EDUCATION

SYSTEM IN IDAHO IS PROBABLY NOT
UP TO CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER.

THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT RULED IN
2005 THAT THE FUNDING SYSTEM WAS

NOT SUFFICIENT TO CARRY OUT THE
DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

THE LEGISLATURE IS REEVALUATING
THE FUNDING SYSTEM AS WE SPEAK

BUT IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN TEN
YEARS AND THE COURT HAS

PERMITTED DESPITE ITS RULING AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM TO

PERSIST.

SHOULD THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT
HAVE BEEN MORE ACTIVE IN

PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION LIKE
THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT DID

IN A SIMILAR CASE OR ARE THERE
PARTS THAT THE COURT CAN'T OR

SHOULDN'T ENFORCE?

>> AS A MOM, EDUCATION IS
SOMETHING THAT GOES STRAIGHT TO

MY HEART.

THAT'S SOMETHING ALL OF US ARE
STRUGGLING WITH IN IDAHO.

THE REALTY IS THAT THE
LITIGATION OVER THE IDAHO SCHOOL

SYSTEM HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE
THE 1970s.

IT'S BEEN GOING ON THAT LONG.

AND I CAN'T TELL YOU, I CAN'T
GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY

THE SUPREME COURT IN 2005 WHEN
IT RETAINED JURISDICTION OVER

THE EDUCATIONAL FUNDING CASE WHY
IT SUDDENLY REVERSED ITSELF AND

MADE THE DECISION TO STOP THE
LITIGATION.

OF COURSE WE KNOW SINCE THEN
THERE WAS ANOTHER EFFORT WHERE

THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
THEMSELVES WERE ACTUALLY SUED IN

FEDERAL COURT OVER THE ENTIRE
THING.

IT'S AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT
ISSUE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF INTERESTING
THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN

OTHER LEGISLATURES OR IN OTHER
STATES AND COURTS OVER THIS BUT

AT THE END OF THE DAY IT COMES
DOWN TO THIS.

COURTS HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT
TIME PROVIDING REMEDIES WHEN

EITHER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OR
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH DOESN'T

LISTEN.

I GO BACK TO THE DAYS OF ANDREW
JACKSON WHEN THERE WAS A SUPREME

COURT DECISION THAT IN WHICH
THEY FOUND HE WAS VIOLATING THE

CONSTITUTION BY A PARTICULAR LAW
THAT REQUIRED SETTLERS TO LEAVE

INDIAN TERRITORY AND HIS COMMENT
WAS, WELL, JUSTICE MARSHALL,

YOU'VE MADE YOUR DECISION.

NOW ENFORCE IT.

AND THE POINT IS THIS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THE COURTS
DON'T CONTROL THE BUDGET.

THEY DON'T CONTROL THE DECISION
MAKING AT THE TOP.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, SAME
QUESTION.

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF HOW THE
IDAHO SUPREME COURT HANDLED THAT

SCHOOL FUNDING CASE AND WHETHER
WE ARE ALLOWING A SCHOOL FUNDING

SYSTEM TO OPERATE IN A WAY THAT
DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS

OF OUR STATE CONSTITUTION?

>> UNDER ARTICLE 9 IT'S A
GENERAL, THOROUGH UNIFORM?

OF SCHOOLING.

THERE'S A LONG LINE OF CASE LAW
ADDRESSING WHETHER WE ARE DOING

THAT, AND I ASSUME THAT THAT
WILL CONTINUE OVER TIME.

I SERVED THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
ECONOMIC REGION WITH A SENATOR

PROSECUTE WASHINGTON WHO WORKS
ON THE BUDGET COMMITTEE THERE.

THE STATE SUPREME COURT THERE I
BELIEVE HAD FINED THE

LEGISLATURE UNTIL THEY COMPLIED
WITH WHAT THEY THOUGHT WERE

THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES.

AND SO THE BODY THAT ACTUAL LIL'
SETS THE BUDGET THEN PROPOSE

RATES THE MONEY BOTH FOR THE
OTHER BRANCH AND FOR ANY FINE

WAS ORDERED TO PAY A FINE.

I DON'T THINK IT REALLY CHANGED
ANYTHING THERE.

BUT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT
TO APPLY THAT CONSTITUTIONAL

STANDARD TO OUR EDUCATION
SYSTEM.

AND WHILE I HAVE BEEN IN THE
LEGISLATURE, WE HAVE WORKED ON

THAT ISSUE.

MY FIRST TERM THERE, WHICH WAS
THE LONGEST IN STATE HISTORY, WE

PUT IN PLACE PUBLIC EDUCATION
STABILIZATION FUND TO HELP

ADDRESS THOSE SITUATIONS WHEN
THE ECONOMY REALLY TANKS AGAIN

AND TO HAVE THAT FUNDING THERE.

THAT WAS A PART OF A SOLUTION.

WE WORKED ON SETTING ASIDE
MAINTENANCE FUNDS FOR OUR SCHOOL

BUILDINGS.

I BELIEVE SINCE WE DID THAT WE
HAVE GIVEN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS

DISCRETION TO TO USE THOSE FUNDS
IN OTHER WAYS BECAUSE THEY

NEEDED TO BE ABLE TOLL DO IT,
BUT WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE

COURT AND THEIR ROLE WITH
RESPECT TO THE LEGISLATURE ABOUT

WHETHER A MEETING THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD, IT'S

THE ROLE OF COURTS TO EVALUATE
THAT IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THAT

ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT AND
I AM CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL SEE

THOSE AGAIN AND TO MAKE A
DECLARATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

WHETHER WE'RE COMPLYING WITH IT
OR NOT.

BEYOND THAT I DON'T KNOW IF I
CAN COMMENT ON WHAT A FUTURE

COURT WOULD DO WITH RESPECT TO A
SITUATION WHERE IT DIDN'T THINK

IT WAS COMPLYING.

I DO THINK THAT'S GOING TO COME
UP.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION MOVING ON
TO ANOTHER TOPIC FOR MRS. BRODY.

YOU IN RECENT YEARS HAVE
LITIGATED SOME PRETTY

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES INVOLVING
WATER LAW AND WATER RIGHTS

BEFORE THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT.

IN SOME CASES THE SUPREME COURT
RULED AGAINST YOUR CLIENT.

AS A JUSTICE OF THE IDAHO
SUPREME COURT DO YOU THINK YOU

WOULD BE BOUND BY THE PRIOR
DECISIONS EVEN IF YOU THOUGHT

ONE OR MORE WAS INCORRECTLY
DECIDED?

WOULD YOU SEEK TO REVERSE OR
OVERRULE THE DECISIONS OR RECUSE

YOURSELF FROM WATER ISSUES ALL
TOGETHER?

>> I THINK IT REALLY DEPENDS ON
THE ISSUE THAT IS COMING BEFORE

THE COURT.

THERE'S NOTION QUITE LIKE WATER
IN IDAHO TO GET PEOPLE'S

PASSIONS GOING.

THOSE ARE COMPLICATED DECISIONS.

SOME OF THOSE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY
APPLICATION TO ANY LITIGANT IN

THE UNIVERSE OTHER THAN MY
CLIENT T. SOME OF THE DECISIONS

RELATED TO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
AQUIFER MODEL BEING USED FOR

DELIVERY CALLS IN SOUTHERN
IDAHO.

I SUPPOSE IF SOMETHING WERE TO
COME UP THAT DEALT WITH THE

VALIDITY OF THAT MODEL AND MAYBE
IF I HAD INFORMATION THAT MIGHT

BEAR DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE IT
WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE

TO LOOK AT CAREFULLY BUT IF ONE
OF THOSE THINGS IN TERMS OF

CONFLICTS EVERY TIME WE LOOK AT
A CASE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE

PARTIES, THE ATTORNEYS, THE
ISSUES AND MAKE A CASE-BY-CASE

DECISION AS TO WHETHER WE CAN
ACTUALLY SIT.

>> IN TAKING A STEP BACK IN THE
QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU, I'M

CURIOUS, YOU BOTH HAVE
EXPERIENCE WITH WATER ISSUES.

MRS. BRODY, WHAT IS THE ROLE OF
THE SUPREME COURT AND SHOULD THE

IDAHO SUPREME COURT GIVE
DEFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

WATER RESOURCES BECAUSE OF THE
SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE CONTAINED

WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT?

>> WELL, THE NUMBER ONE JOB OF
THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT WHEN IT

COMES TO WATER IS TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION.

PERIOD.

THEN YOU LOOK AT THE IDAHO
LEGISLATIVE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN

PASSED.

IN TERMS OF AGENCY DEFERENCE,
YOU KNOW, IT REALLY TURNS -- THE

IDAHO SUPREME COURT'S ABILITY TO
REVIEW WHAT AN AGENCY DOES

WHETHER IT BE THE DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES OR ANY AGENCY,

IT DOESN'T MATTER TTURNS ON WHAT
YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT FACTUAL
ISSUES, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT

PLACES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT HAS
PARTICULAR EXPERTISE AND YOU'RE

TALKING ABOUT FACT SPECIFIC
TYPES OF ISSUES, VERY HARD FOR

THE SUPREME COURT TO STEP IN AND
TO JUDGE OR REEVALUATE THOSE

FACTS, TO SECOND GUESS IF YOU
WILL THE LEGISLATIVE AGENCY

EXCUSE ME THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAW,
ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT'S A

WHOLE DIFFERENT MATTER.

THAT'S AN AREA WHERE THE IDAHO
SUPREME COURT CAN USE ITS POWERS

TO REVIEW WHAT'S HAPPENING.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, SAME
QUESTION.

SHOULD THE SUPREME COURT GIVE
DEFERENCE TO DECISIONS FROM

IBWR?

>> I BELIEVE THE COURT'S ROLE IS
FUNDAMENTALLY TO PROTECT THOSE

RIGHTS AS THEY ARE EXPRESSED IN
OUR STATE CONSTITUTION.

WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT
DEFERRING TO THE AGENCY IN THIS

REGARD OR OTHERS BECAUSE WE HAVE
SEEN THE FEDERAL MODEL WHERE THE

LEGISLATURE, CONGRESS HAS
DEFERRED BROAD RULEMAKING

AUTHORITY TO AGENCIES AND THEN
COURTS HAVE DEFERRED TO THEIR

EXPERTISE ALLOWING MUCH OF THAT
POLICY MAKING AUTHORITY THAT HAD

BEEN EXERCISED BY CONGRESS TO
NOW BE EXERCISED BY AGENCIES.

IN THIS REGARD, IN WATER ISSUES,
I WOULD SAY IDAHO IS AHEAD OF

MOST OF THE WEST IN HOW WE DEAL
WITH WATER.

BUT WE DO HAVE A FUNDAMENTALLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE WHICH IS HAS

SNAKE RIVER AQUIFER, THE DECLINE
OF THAT AQUIFER AND HISTORIC

AGREEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED THIS
SPRING BETWEEN THE GROUND WATER

USERS AND THE SURFACE WATER
COALITION, AND I BELIEVE THAT

PARTS OF THAT AGREEMENT THAT ARE
SET TO BE IMPLEMENTED OVER A

NUMBER OF YEARS COULD VERY WELL
WORK THEIR WAY UP TO THE COURT.

I WOULD SEE MY ROLE WITH RESPECT
TO THAT OR OTHER WATER ISSUES TO

APPLY THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN
AND ALLOW THAT WITHIN THE

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK TO
DEFINE WHAT THOSE RIGHTS ARE.

>> NEXT QUESTION.

>> SENATOR, IF YOU HAVE NEVER
ARGUED A INDICATE BEFORE THE

IDAHO SUPREME COURT OR COURT OF
APPEALS, WHY DO YOU THINK YOU'RE

READY TO SIT ON THE HIGHEST
BENCH IF YOU HAVE NEVER STOOD IN

FRONT OF IT?

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IN FRONT
OF OUR DISTRICT JUDGES OR OUR

MAGISTRATES.

THOSE ARE THE COURTS THAT MOST
PEOPLE SEE.

THEY ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH
THOSE COURTS OR SPECIALTY COURTS

LIKE VETERANS COURT, MENTAL
HEALTH COURT, DRUG COURT WHERE I

HAVE SPENT HOURS IN FRONT OF
THEM.

AS AN ATTORNEY, I HAVE FILED
APPELLATE BRIEFS WHEN I WAS IN

WASHINGTON D.C.

WE HAD SOME APPELLATE WORK AT
STOLL REEFS.

THE ANALYSIS I DID ON THOSE
CASES, THE COMPLEX LITIGATION,

EXTENSIVE BRIEF WRITING THAT WE
DID IS ALL IMPORTANT BACKGROUND

FOR SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO BE
ON THE COURT.

BUT I ALSO BELIEVE IT'S JUST AS
IMPORTANT TO HAVE A JUSTICE WITH

EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE ACTUALLY
PRACTICING IN FRONT OF THOSE

DISTRICT JUDGES AND MAGISTRATE
JUDGES WHO ARE THE ONES MOST

PEOPLE WILL BE IN FRONT OF.

>> MRS. BRODY, YOU HAVE ARGUED
BEFORE THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT

BUT NEARLY ALL YOUR EXPERIENCE
APPEARS TO BE IN CIVIL CASES.

DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BE
PART OF THE TEAM LEADING IDAHO'S

COURT?

>> THE PERSPECTIVE I BRING TO
THE COURT, I LOOK AT THIS JOB AS

BEING PART OF THE TEAM.

YOU'RE NOT ALONE MAKING
DECISIONS.

YOU'RE WORKING WITH FOUR OTHER
PEOPLE TO MAKE THE BEST POLICY

DECISIONS POSSIBLE.

IT'S TRUE I'M NOT A CRIMINAL
DEFENSE ATTORNEY BY ANY STRETCH

BUT I CERTAINLY HAVE A GREAT
DEAL OF EXPERIENCE ACTUALLY

WORKING WITHIN THAT SYSTEM AND
WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE

BEEN THE VICTIMS OF CRIME.

I THINK THAT THAT'S A
PERSPECTIVE THAT IS VALUABLE AND

IMPORTANT AND DIFFERENT THAN
WHAT'S THERE NOW.

SPEAKING OF THE THREE JUDGES
THERE NOW, ALL INCREDIBLY

EXPERIENCED DISTRICT COURT
JUDGES WHO COME WITH TONS OF

BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE IN THE
CRIMINAL MATTERS BUT TO HAVE A

DIFFERENT VOICE, A DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT'S

INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.

>> MRS. BRODY, WHAT DO YOU THINK
OF SENATOR McKENZIE'S ARGUMENT

THAT HE HAS PRACTICALLED BEFORE
STATE AND DISTRICT JUDGES AND

THAT'S SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE TO
GO BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OR

COURT OF APPEALS?

>> YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TRAVELED A
LOT TOGETHER OVER THE PAST SEVEN

MONTHS AND WE HAVE LISTENED TO
EACH OTHER TALK.

WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO HOW WE
INTERPRET A STATUTE OR HOW WE

MIGHT APPROACH A CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW THAT

MR. McKENZIE AND I REALLY
DIFFER IN THAT REGARD.

THE THINGS THAT HE IS TALKING
ABOUT, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE

BRED INTO US IN LAW SCHOOL.

THAT'S THE WAY WE APPROACH LEGAL
QUESTIONS TODAY.

WE ASK WHAT DOES A STATUTE SAY,
NOT WHAT DO WE WANT IT TO SAY.

BUT I'LL TELL YOU RT THING THAT
MAKES ME DIFFERENT FROM

MR. McKENZIE.

THAT'S 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
LITIGATING IN FRONT OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONS, PLANNING AND
ZONING, MAGISTRATE COURT,

DISTRICT COURT, THE SUPREME
COURT, NINE TIMES.

TALKING ABOUT GETTING AN
INCREDIBLY BROAD AND DEEP

PERSPECTIVE ON THE LEGAL ISSUES
THAT AFFECT THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO.

I'M TALKING ABOUT TAKING 20
YEARS OF BEING IN THE TRENCHES.

I HAVE HAD ONE JOB MY WHOLE
CAREER.

THAT'S TAKING CARE OF PEOPLE'S
PROBLEMS IN THE COURTS AND

TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS,
WHAT THE POLICIES ARE, MAKING

EXCELLENT DECISIONS.

I THINK THAT VOICE, THAT
EXPERIENCE IS INCREDIBLY

IMPORTANT AND THE FACT THAT
MR. McKENZIE HAS NEVER STOOD

IN FRONT OF THE IDAHO SUPREME
COURT IS SOMETHING THAT CONCERNS

ME GREATLY.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, WHY
HAVEN'T YOU ARGUED A INDICATE

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OR
COURT OF APPEALS PRIOR TO

SEEKING A SEAT ON THAT BENCH?

>> MY PRACTICE HAS JUST BEEN IN
EITHER FEDERAL COURT, AT STOLL

REEFS OR OUT OF STATE COURTS
REPRESENTING A COMPANY BASED IN

IDAHO THAT HAD BUSINESS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY.

THEN MOST OF MY EXPERIENCE IN
PRACTICE AT MY OWN FIRM HAS BEEN

AT THE TRIAL LEVEL.

SO I HAVE THAT EXTENSIVE
EXPERIENCE.

I THINK IT'S A USEFUL
EXPERIENCE.

BUT I WOULD SAY WHAT I LOOK FOR
IN A JUSTICE, IT'S NOT SIMPLY

THAT YOU HAVE ARGUED A FEW CASES
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, BUT

THAT FUNDAMENTAL JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHY THAT INFORMS ALL YOUR

CASES WHETHER IT'S A
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OR STATUTE

OR AGREEMENT THAT YOU WILL APPLY
THE TEXT AS WRITTEN AND I WOULD

DO THAT.

I WOULD ALSO SAY MY ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND AT GEORGETOWN

UNIVERSITY, ATTENDED ON A FULL
TUITION SCHOLARSHIP ON A YEAR

THEY HAD MORE APPLICANTS THAN
ANY LAW SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRY

HAS EVER HAD.

GRADUATED IN THE TOP 10% OF MY
CLASS THERE AS A STRONG

BACKGROUND.

I UNDERSTAND THE LAW.

I CAN APPLY IT AND SERVE IDAHO
WELL ON ITS COURT.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION ON PRO
BONO.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, THIS IS
PRO BONO WEEK.

IDAHO REESE RULES OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SAY LAWYERS

SHOULD ASPIRE TO PERFORM AT
LEAST 50 HOURS OF PRO BONO WORK

A YEAR AND BOTH OF YOU MAINTAIN
YOU HAVE DONE MORE THAN THAT YET

NEITHER OF YOU HAVE RECORDED
THAT TO THE IDAHO LAWYERS

PROGRAM.

IF ELECTED TO THE HIGH COURT
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THE

STATE IS WORKING TO MEET THE
LEGAL NEEDS OF LOW INCOME

CLIENTS.

DO YOU THINK THAT IDAHO'S PRO
BONO TRACKING AND REPORTING

SYSTEMS NEED TO BE MORE ROBUST
SO WE CAN ALL GET A BETTER

UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEED FOR
REDUCED FEE LEGAL WORK OR WOULD

A REPORTING REQUIREMENT JUST BE
TOO OPPRESSIVE?

>> THANK YOU.

I WOULDN'T ADD TO THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS

BECAUSE PRACTICES DIFFER SO
MUCH.

FROM WHEN I WAS AT STOLL REEF, A
LAW FIRM OF HUNDREDS OF

ATTORNEYS TO HAVING A SOLO
PRACTICE, REPRESENTING

INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES, THEY ARE VERY

DIFFERENT PRACTICES.

SOME ATTORNEYS LIKE ME SERVE
OTHER CAPACITIES.

I'M IN THE LEGISLATURE THREE OR
FOUR MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR

DEPENDING IF WE CAN SET A BUDGET
OR NOT.

INTERIM COMMITTEES.

ATTORNEYS HAVE OBLIGATIONS AND
MANY OF THOSE ARE IN PUBLIC

SERVICE THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY
PRO BONO.

I WOULDN'T REQUIRE ATTORNEYS TO
HAVE ADDITIONAL REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS BUT I DO THINK IT
IS IMPORTANT IT THAT WE CONTINUE

TO EMPHASIZE ACCESS TO THE
COURTS AND WITH PRO BONO WORK AS

PART OF THAT.

>> MRS. BRODY, SAME QUESTION.

>> YOU KNOW, I LEARNED
SOMETHING.

I LEARNED SOMETHING IN THIS
CAMPAIGN, AND THAT IS I DIDN'T

REALIZE I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
REPORTING HOURS TO THE NORTH

IDAHO BAR OR THE VOLUNTEER
LAWYERS PROGRAM.

WHEN I PARTICIPATED IN THAT
PROGRAM I REPORTED THE HOURS.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE HOURS THAT I
SPEND TAKING CARE OF MY

NEIGHBORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS,
NO, I HAVE NEVER REPORTED THEM

TO ANYONE.

BUT I'LL TELL YOU, FOR ME WHAT'S
IMPORTANT IS I TRAVELED AROUND

THE STATE, I HAVE SEEN WHAT
LAWYERS ARE DOING.

WE HAVE PEOPLE WORKING IN EVERY
COMMUNITY PROVIDING SERVICES.

WHEN I WAS UP IN BONNER'S FERRY
THE IDAHO LEGAL AID WAS

ADVERTISING A FREE DAY WHERE YOU
COULD COME IN AND HAVE A TIME

SET ASIDE TO MEET WITH AN
ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR LEGAL

MATTERS.

THE IDAHO TRIAL LAWYERS, IN
BOISE, THEY PROVIDE THE STREET

LAW CLINIC.

THERE'S A PROGRAM SIMILAR TO
THAT IN TWIN FALLS.

WHAT I SEE FROM TRAVELING AROUND
IS THAT THE FIRST THING WE NEED

TO DO IN THIS STATE IS GATHER UP
ALL OF THE ASSETS THAT WE HAVE,

ALL OF THE PEOPLE PROVIDING
THOSE SERVICES, GET THEM PUT IN

ONE PLACE AND COORDINATED SO
THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THEIR

SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE.

WHAT I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO DO IS
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A WEBSITE,

SOMETHING LIKE FREE LEGAL
SERVICES FOR IDAHO, I DON'T KNOW

THE NAME BUT THE POINT IS THIS,
WHERE YOU CAN CATALOG THOSE

SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

WHERE YOU CAN TAKE THE FORMS,
INTERACTIVE FORM SERVICES THAT

THE IDAHO LEGAL AID SERVICES
THAT AVAILABLE ON THEIR WEBSITE,

PUT THEM ON THERE.

THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT HAS
FORMS AVAILABLE.

LET'S MAKE THEM INTERACTIVE.

PUT THEM ON A SINGLE WEBSITE.

I'M TALKING ABOUT JUST COMMON
SENSE.

TALKING ABOUT GATHERING UP ALL
THE RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE,

PUTTING THEM IN ONE SPOT SO THAT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

CAN ACCESS THEM.

>> NEXT QUESTION FROM REBECCA.

>> MR. THE STATE BAR SURVEYED
MEMBERS.

[AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE]
THEY RATED THEM IN FOUR

CATEGORIES INCLUDING INTEGRITY,
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW,

TEMPERAMENT AND LEGAL AABILITY
ON A SCALE OF ONE TO FOUR, FOUR

BEING THE HIGHEST.

MRS. BRODY YOU AVERAGED 3.64,
SENATOR McKENZIE AVERAGED A

1.86.

HOW MUCH WEIGHT SHOULD VOTERS
GIVE THESE SCORES?

>> IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
SCORES.

PEOPLE ASK ME, WHEN I'M OUT ON
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL THE FIRST

THING THEY ASK IS DO WE REALLY
VOTE FOR OUR SUPREME COURT

JUSTICES?

THE NEXT QUESTION IS, WHAT MAKES
A GOOD ONE?

THAT'S SUCH A HARD THING FOR
PEOPLE TO EVALUATE.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT.

AS MUCH AS WE ALL LOVE TO TELL A
GOOD JOKE FROM TIME TO TIME, THE

LAWYERS OF THIS STATE KNOW WHAT
JUDGES DO, THEY KNOW WHAT IS

IMPORTANT, THEY KNOW HOW TO
EVALUATE IT AND THEY HAVE DONE

THAT.

THOSE SCORES MEAN SOMETHING.

I HOPE IDAHO VOTERS WILL TAKE A
LOOK AT THEM.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE?

>> IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME THAT
LAWYERS TEND TO LEAN TOWARDS

SOMEONE WHO SERVED AS PRESIDENT
OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

OVER SOMEONE MO MOST OF THEM
KNOW ONLY AS A CONSERVATIVE

REPUBLICAN STATE SENATOR.

LAST YEAR A HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
DID A SURVEY OF THE IDEOLOGY OF

AMERICAN ATTORNEYS.

THEY PUBLISHED IT LAST YEAR.

WHAT THEY CALLED THE MOST
COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE OF THE

IDEOLOGY OF AMERICAN LAWYERS
EVER ASSEMBLED.

HERE'S WHAT THEY FOUND.

JUST QUOTING FROM THEIR
CONCLUSION, FIRST AMERICAN

LAWYERS LEAN TO THE LEFT OF THE
IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM.

THE MODEL SCORE PLACES THE
AVERAGE AMERICAN LAWYER'S

IDEOLOGY CLOSE TO THE IDEOLOGY
OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.

THIS CONFIRMS PRIOR SCHOLARSHIP
AND JOURNALISM ARGUED THAT THE

LEGAL PROFESSION IS LIBERAL ON
BALANCE.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW MRS. BRODY'S
PERSONAL PREFERENCES.

SHE DOESN'T DISCUSS IT ON THE
CAMPAIGN TRAIL BUT I WOULD

EXPECT THE ATTORNEYS AND THAT
BIAS TO BE REFLECTED ON AN

ANONYMOUS SURVEY OF SOMEONE WHO
WAS PRESIDENT OF THE TRIAL

LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS
SOMEONE WHO IS A CONSERVATIVE.

HAS A RECORD AS A CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICAN STATE SENATOR.

IN FACT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
SURVEY RESULTS FROM 2010, THE

RATINGS RATED HIGHER THAN ANY
PERSON WHO HAS APPLIED TO THAT

COURT INCLUDING TWO OF THE
SITTING JUSTICES AS WELL AS

SEVERAL DISTRICT JUDGES THAT I
HAVE SAT IN FRONT OF.

I AM PROUD THAT THOSE THAT I
WORK THE CLOSEST WITH THEIR HAVE

SUPPORTED ME.

EVERY MEMBER OF THE MAJORITY
LEADERSHIP TEAM THAT HAS SERVED

ON STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE WHICH
I CHAIRED HAS.

EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
LEADERSHIP TEAM AS WELL.

SO I'M PROUD FOR THOSE
ENDORSEMENTS.

BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK
AT PEOPLE'S INHERENT BIASES WHEN

THEY FILL OUT AN ANONYMOUS
SURVEY.

>> MRS. BRODY, I WANT TO GIVE
YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

FIRST I WANT TO TOUCH ON
SOMETHING YOU SAID.

YOU POSTED ENDORSEMENTS, ALL
REPUBLICANS.

YOU MENTIONED YOU HAVE A
REPUTATION FOR BEING A

CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN.

ARE YOU PROPERLY RUNNING FOR A
NONPARTISAN OFFICE WITH ALL OF

THESE ENDORSEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE
BEEN TOUTING?

>> WELL, THANK YOU.

I'M PROUD OF THOSE ENDORSEMENTS.

BUT I ALSO HAVE ENDORSEMENTS OF
MEMBERS OF OTHER PARTIES THAT I

HAVE WORKED WITH.

AS PRESIDENT OF PENWER, OUR
LEADERSHIP TEAM WAS MADE UP OF I

WAS PRESIDENT FROM IDAHO BUT
ALSO LEADERS FROM OREGON,

BRITISH COLUMBIA AND MONTANA.

AND THE THREE MEMBERS WHO SERVED
AS VICE PRESIDENTS WHEN I WAS

PRESIDENT OF THAT ORGANIZATION
HAVE ALL ENDORSED ME.

THEY ARE FROM THREE DIFFERENT
POLITICAL PARTIES.

SENATOR ROBELAND IS A DEMOCRAT
FROM OREGON.

MIKE CUFF IS A REPUBLICAN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM MONTANA.

DAN ASHTON WAS AN ML A FROM THE
BRITISH COLUMBIA LIBERAL PARTY.

THEY HAVE SENT A LETTER TO THE
NEWSPAPERS ACROSS THE STATE AND

I'LL READ A BRIEF PORTION OF
THAT.

THEY WROTE, WE'RE MEMBERS OF
THREE DIFFERENT POLITICAL

PARTIES BUT PARTY AFFILIATION
WAS NEVER AN ISSUE AS WE WORKED

CLOSELY WITH SENATOR McKENZIE
TO ADVANCE NONPARTISAN SOLUTIONS

TO REGIONAL ISSUES.

SENATOR McKENZIE'S LEADERSHIP
WAS FAIR, OPEN AND COLLABORATIVE

AND FOCUSED ON ADVANCING THE
BEST INTERESTS OF OUR REGION.

WE BELIEVE THE QUALITIES THAT
MADE HIM AN EFFECTED AN

RESPECTED MEMBER OF PENWER WILL
SERVE HIM WELL ON THE IDAHO

SUPREME COURT.

>> THE BAR SCORES ARE WHAT THEY
ARE BECAUSE I EARNED THEM.

I EARNED THEM OVER 20 YEARS.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT MY SERVICE
IN THE BAR, EVERY ORGANIZATION

THAT I HAVE BEEN A PART OF, I
HAVE RISEN TO THE LEADERSHIP

SPOT.

I HAVE BEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
5th DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION.

I AM PART OF THE IDAHO TRIAL
LAWSHES ASSOCIATION AND I BECAME

THE PRESIDENT.

I WAS A MEMBER OF A
PROFESSIONALISM ORGANIZATION AND

I BECAME THE PRESIDENT.

IN 2014 THE BAR HONORED ME WITH
A PROFESSIONALISM AWARD.

WHEN PEOPLE CALL ME, AND IT
HAPPENS VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY,

THEY CALL OR THEY EMAIL, THEY
ASK FOR MY ADVICE, MY INPUT.

TALKING ABOUT MY PEERS NOW.

PEOPLE COMING TO ME LOOKING FOR
KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION.

WHEN PEOPLE ASK ME TO TEACH, I
TEACH.

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION IN
ANY FORM THAT THEY ASK.

I'M A MENTOR IN THE IDAHO TRIAL
SKILLS ACADEMY.

I MENTOR YOUNG LAWYERS IN
PRACTICE LESS THAN TEN YEARS,

HELP THEM BECOME BETTER LAWYERS.

PEOPLE COME TO ME BECAUSE I GIVE
BECAUSE I SERVE.

I TRY TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE
BENEFIT OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND

INFORMATION THAT I HAVE GOT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REPUTATION.

SOMETHING THAT HAS TAKEN ME 20
YEARS TO EARN.

THAT'S WHY THE BAR SCORES ARE
WHAT THEY ARE.

IT'S NOT SIMPLY A REFLECTION OF
BIAS.

IT'S A REFLECTION OF PEOPLE
KNOWING ME AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

TRUSTING ME.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION FROM BETSY
RUSSELL.

>> MRS. BRODY, WHILE YOU HAVE
RECEIVED ENDORSEMENTS IN THIS

RACE FROM AN ARRAY OF
INDIVIDUALS IN IDAHO FROM BOTH

POLITICAL PARTIES, STATE RECORDS
DO SHOW THAT PRIOR TO YOUR

MAKING THIS RUN IN PAST YEARS
YOU DID GIVE POLITICAL

DONATIONS, PARTISAN, ALL TO
REPUBLICANS.

HOW DO YOU RISE ABOVE YOUR PAST
PARTISAN REPUBLICAN TIES TO SEEK

THIS NONPARTISAN SEAT?

>> SURE.

I'M NOT APOLITICAL.

BEFORE I SO THE THIS POSITION I
PARTICIPATED ACTIVELY IN LOCAL

POLITICS.

I HAVE BROUGHT PIES TO PICNICS,
I HAVE HELPED WIN RACES TO BE

SURE, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS
RACE, WHEN I SIGNED UP FOR THIS

RACE I KNEW IT WAS NONPARTISAN
AND I WAS HAPPY TO SIGN ON.

FRANKLY IN TODAY'S WORLD I LOVE
THE FACT THAT IN THIS RACE I CAN

REACH ACROSS THE AISLE TO
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS,

CONSTITUTIONALISTS,
INDEPENDENTS, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

THE THING ABOUT IT IS WHEN IT
COMES TO A SUPREME COURT

JUSTICE, EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON
THAT SPECTRUM WANTS THE SAME

THING.

THEY WANT SOMEBODY WHO IS GOING
TO APPLY THE LAW, WHO WILL BE

FAIR, TREAT PEOPLE WITH DIGNITY
AND RESPECT.

THEY WANT THE SAME THINGS,
BETSY.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE
POLITICAL LABEL IS.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM
REBECCA BOONE.

>> NUMBERS FROM EACH DISTRICT
SHOW DISPARITIES IN THE AVERAGE

LENGTH OF PROBATION AND
SENTENCES ACROSS THE STATE FOR

THE SAME TYPES OF CRIMES.

THE AVERAGE LENGTH GIVEN IN
DISTRICT 4 INCLUDING ADA COUNTY

ARE ABOUT TWO YEARS LONGER THAN
ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE.

OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR ROLE IN THE
LEGISLATURE YOU'RE DEEPLY

FAMILIAR WITH WHAT LAWMAKERS
HAVE BEEN DOING.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU
THINK THE COURT SHOULD ADDRESS

THESE SENTENCING DISPARITIES AND
IF SO, HOW.

>> THANK YOU.

THE COURT HAS TO BE A PART OF
THE SOLUTION TO ISSUES OF

JUSTICE AND INCARCERATION IN OUR
STATE.

I WAS ONE OF THE CO-SPONSORS OF
THE JUSTICE REINVESTMENT ACT.

I SERVED ON THE PUBLIC DEFENSE
REFORM COMMITTEE.

BOTH OF THOSE ARE REFLECTIONS OF
ISSUES THAT WE ARE SEEING AS A

STATE RELATED TO INCARCERATION
LEVELS AND THE REPRESENTATION

THAT PEOPLE HAVE WHEN THEY GO
THROUGH OUR COURT SYSTEM.

I BELIEVE THE COURT HAS A VERY
IMPORTANT ROLE WORKING WITH THE

LEGISLATURE AND THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH AS WE IMPLEMENT THE

JUSTICE REINVESTMENT ACT AND
ALARGE -- A LARGE PART OF THAT

ACT WAS TO MOVE PEOPLE TO SPROFS
-- SUPERVISION IN THE COMMUNITY

AWAY FROM INCARCERATION.

RIGHT NOW THERE'S BEING RULES
IMPLEMENTED TO PUT THAT INTO

PLACE.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME
TIME BEFORE WE DO THAT.

GET THE FUNDING FOR DIFFERENT
JURISDICTIONS FOR US TO HAVE

THAT.

BUT THE COURT HAS TO WORK WITH
THE LEGISLATURE, MONITOR THE

CASES, WORK WITH THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH TO MONITOR THE SENTENCES

AND OUR COUNTIES TO MAKE SURE
THAT SUPERVISION TOOLS ARE IN

PLACE FOR THEM TO DO THAT.

IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG PROCESS.

BUT I'M GLAD THAT WE ARE LOOKING
AT IT IN THAT WAY BECAUSE I

THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR
COMMUNITIES TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE

IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO NOT
OVER-INCARCERATE IF WE CAN DO SO

SAFELY.

I THINK WE CAN IN MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
JUDGES IF YOU SEE A STATISTIC

THAT SHOWS A GREAT VARIATION
AMONG THE DISTRICTS IN THIS

STATE I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT TO BRING IT TO THE

ATTENTION OF THE JUDGES AND TO
TALK ABOUT IT.

FIGURE OUT WHY IS IT?

WHAT'S HAPPENING WITHIN THE
SYSTEM?

I THINK YOU HAVE TO START THERE.

WHY?

WHY IS IT THAT THIS IS
HAPPENING.

FROM THERE YOU CAN ADDRESS WHAT
IF ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE

ABOUT IT.

>> ALL RIGHT, THE IN EX QUESTION
COMES FROM BETSY RUSSELL.

>> MRS. BRODY, YOU HAVE BEEN
ENDORSED BY MANY HIGH PROFILE

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
INCLUDING EIGHT IDAHO SHERIFFS

AND 18 PROSECUTORS.

AS A JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME
COURT HOW CAN YOU BE FAIR TO

CITIZENS WHO HAVE DISPUTES
AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT?

>>
[AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE]

THERE'S A PLACE FOR IT.

IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THAT
WE RECOGNIZE -- THAT EVERYONE AT

THE END OF THE DAY IS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY DO.

I BELIEVE AS A SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE I UNDERSTAND HOLDING

PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE.

NO MATTER WHAT THEIR AFFILIATION
IS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT IS
WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, THE
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE

WITHDREW ITS ENDORSEMENT OF YOU
BECAUSE YOU FILED A COUPLE OF

UNSUCCESSFUL CIVIL LAWSUITS
AGAINST LAW OFFICERS CHARGING

EXCESSIVE FORCE INCLUDING A HIGH
FILE CASE IN WHICH A SUSPECT WAS

SHOT.

AS A JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME
COURT HOW CAN YOU BE FAIR TO LAW

ENFORCEMENT?

>> WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I'M PROUD
OF THE ENDORSEMENTS THAT I HAVE

AND MY FRIENDSHIP WITH OUR FIRST
RESPONDERS.

BUT THERE'S NO ENDORSEMENT THAT
IS WORTH MORE TO ME THAN THE

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ONE
IDAHOAN.

AS A STATE SENATOR, I CARRIED
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BILLS ON

BEHALF OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE.

I CARRIED THE PEACE OFFICERS
TEMPORARY DISABILITY BILL TO

ENSURE THAT THEIR SALARY AND
BENEFITS CONTINUED DURING

PERIODS OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY.

I CARRIED A BILL TO PROTECT
THEIR IDENTITIES WHEN THEY ARE

SUED IN COURT.

I WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE FOP TO
SET UP THE INTERNET CRIMES

AGAINST CHILDREN UNIT IN THE
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND EVEN THIS

SESSION WORKING WITH SENATOR
KEOGHAND SPEAKER --

[AUDIO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE]
TO ENSURE THAT THAT REMAINS AN

INVESTIGATIVE UNIT.

I HAVE ON MY SENATE CALL MY
PLAQUE AS THE FOP SENATOR OF THE

YEAR NEXT TO THE PLAQUE OF THE
FIREFIGHTERS SENATOR OF THE

YEAR.

I'M PROUD OF THE FRIENDSHIPS
THAT I HAVE THERE.

BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHTS

OF EVERY IDAHOAN.

SO THE CASE THAT YOU MENTIONED,
SOMEONE SHOT DURING ARREST, I

HAD A CASE WHERE SOMEONE HAD
THEIR CLAVICLE BROKEN DURING

SERVICE OF A MISDEMEANOR
WARRANT.

THEN I HAD A CASE WHERE A
TEENAGE BOY WAS GROOMED AND

DRUGGED AND SEXUALLY MOLESTED BY
A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER.

THEY DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTED.

I UNDERSTAND AND I RESPECT THE
FOP PROTECTION OF ITS OWN AND TO

STAND UP FOR ITS MEMBERS.

THEY SHOULD DO THAT, BUT I HAVE
A DIFFERENT JOB.

MY JOB IS TO STAND UP FOR THE
CONSTITUTION REGARDLESS OF MY

FRIENDSHIP OR MY PREFERENCES.

>> DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND?

>> I DO.

YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT
PROTECTING SOMEONE'S

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS
INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY

IMPORTANT.

I'LL BE THE FIRST TO STAND UP TO
DO THAT.

BUT I'LL TELL YOU, AS LAWYERS
WHEN WE HAVE KEYS TO THE

COURTHOUSE, YOU HAVE TO USE
IMPECCABLE JUDGMENT.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT CASES TO
FILE.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT CASES NOT
TO FILE.

YOU HAVE TO USE INCREDIBLE,
INCREDIBLE JUDGMENT BECAUSE

THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES.

WHEN CASES GET BROUGHT THAT
DON'T OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN

BROUGHT, IT MAKES IT SO
DIFFICULT FOR THE NEXT PERSON

WHO NEEDS TO BRING THAT CASE TO
GET JUSTICE.

THAT'S I BELIEVE WHY THE
FOP REVOKED THEIR ENDORSEMENT.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE?

>> YES, THE CASE THAT MRS. BRODY
IS TALKING ABOUT I ONLY GOT

INVOLVED AFTER IT HAD GONE
THROUGH SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE

A FEDERAL JUDGE, WHICH IS WHERE
A JUDGE LOOKS AT THE FACTS OF A

CASE AND DETERMINES THAT IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO GO BEFORE A JURY.

THAT'S WHEN I GOT INVOLVED IN
THAT CASE.

THOSE KIND OF ISSUES NEED TO BE
RESOLVED IN OUR COURT SYSTEMS

RATHER THAN OTHER PLACES.

>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.

WE HAVE TO MOVE ON.

REBECCA BOONE HAS A QUESTION.

>> MRS. BRODY, THE COURTS ARE
CURRENTLY FUNDED IN LARGE PART

BY FEES FOR CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
CASES.

BUT THE FUNDING STREAM ISN'T
STABLE AND CIVIL FILINGS HAVE

DROPPED PARTICULARLY.

SO THE FUNDING HAS DROPPED.

AS A MEMBER OF THE IDAHO SUPREME
COURT IF ELECTED WHAT STEPS

WOULD YOU PURSUE TO ADDRESS THE
DECLINING FEE FUNDING AND ENSURE

ADEQUATE BUDGETS FOR IDAHO
COURTS?

>> GOT TO WORK WITH THE
LEGISLATURE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY MAKE
THOSE DECISIONS.

WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE US DO,
I DON'T WANT TO SEE US RAISE

FEES.

BECAUSE I THINK IT CREATES
PROBLEMS WITH ACCESS TO THE

COURT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAVE TO
GO -- GOT TO ENSURE AND THE

LEGISLATURE IS A PART OF THAT,
ENSURING THAT WE HAVE A COURT

SYSTEM THAT IS FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY FUNDED SO WE CAN TAKE

CARE OF IDAHO'S JUDICIAL NEEDS.

>> THE COURTS DO HAVE SOME
SIGNIFICANT DISCRETION, THOUGH,

OVER SUGGESTING WHAT FEES WOULD
BE APPROPRIATE, WHEN THEY SHOULD

BE IMPLEMENTED.

SOME CRITICS SAY PARTICULARLY
THE CRIMINAL FEES AND FAMILY LAW

RELATED FILING FEES ACTUALLY PUT
THE BURDEN ON SOME OF IDAHO'S

MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS.

IN THOSE SITTINGSES SHOULD THERE
BE ANOTHER REVENUE STREAM?

>> WELL, I CERTAINLY CAN'T ARGUE
WITH THE IDEA THAT THOSE FEES

PUT A BURDEN ON PEOPLE.

HAVE SEEN IT IN MY OWN PRACTICE.

I HAVE HAD TO FILE PAPERWORK TO
TRY TO GET FEES WAIVED BUT IT'S

DIFFICULT TO DO.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN
ALTERNATIVE, BUT YOU KNOW, THE

REALTY IS IN A STATE LIKE IDAHO
YOU HAVE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH

THE LEGISLATURE.

YOU HAVE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH
COUNTIES TO MAKE SURE THAT

YOU'RE MAXIMIZING THE RESOURCES
THAT YOU'VE GOT AND MAKING THE

BEST DECISIONS POSSIBLE.

THERE'S NOT AN EASY ANSWER TO
THE FUNDING PROBLEM.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, THE
STRUGGLE TO FUND THE COURTS,

WHAT DO YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE
DONE?

>> WELL, I HAVE WORKED WITH THE
COURT LOBBYIST ON A NUMBER OF --

PUTTING OUR SENIOR JUDGE PROGRAM
IN PLACE TO UTILIZE JUDGES WHO

HAD RETIRED BACK IN OUR COURT
SYSTEM.

I HAVE WORKED ON OTHER THINGS I
TALK ABOUT THE FOP BILL, THESE

THINGS OFTEN GET PUT ON TO FEES
AND COSTS.

AS YOU SAY IN CRIMINAL CONTEXT
SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET PAID.

IF A PERSON IS SENT TO PRISON,
DOESN'T GET PAID.

IN A CIVIL CONTEST IT CAN BE
VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE AND WE'RE

HAVING FEWER FILINGS.

THIS IS AN ONGOING ISSUE THAT
THE COURT, THE LEGISLATURE, AND

THE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY ARE
INVOLVED IN THE PUBLIC DEFENSE

SYSTEM SO HEAVILY HAVE TO
RESOLVE.

I THINK THE FEES AND COSTS ARE
GOING TO BE A COMPONENT BUT YOU

CANNOT KEEP ADDING TO THOSE TO
PAY FOR THE SYSTEM.

SO IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO
LOOK AT AND ALL THREE BRANCH

VERSUS TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE
SURE OUR COURTS ARE ACCESSIBLE

BUT WE'RE PAYING FOR THINGS WE
NEED TO PAY FOR.

>> MRS. BROAD YOU, BOTH YOUR
PRACTICES RESIDE IN AREAS WHERE

THE NEW ODYSSEY SYSTEM,
PAPERLESS SYSTEM, HAS BEEN

ROLLING OUT FOR OUR COURTS.

WHAT HAS YOUR EXPERIENCE BEEN
AENED WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE

MOVING FORWARD?

>> I LOVE ELECTRONIC FILING.

I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING PRIMARILY
IN THE WATER COURTS OVER THE

LAST FIVE YEARS AND I'M SPOLD
ROTTEN.

I LOVE IT.

IT MAKES LIFE A LOT EASIER.

>> SAME QUESTION, SENATOR.

>> I HAVE UTILIZED IT MOSTLY IN
THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM WHERE

IT'S ALL ELECTRONIC FILING.

ADA COUNTY IS JUST STARTING IT
THERE.

I DO THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT
TOOL TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE COURT

RECORDS ARE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO
PEOPLE.

IT'S EASIER TO FILE ONCE YOU
FIGURE OUT THE SYSTEM.

AND THE NOTICES THAT GO OUT ARE
EASIER FOR THE ATTORNEYS TO

FOLLOW AND FIND OUT WHEN THEIR
DEADLINES ARE.

IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROCESS THAT
WE'RE JUST STARTING TO IMPLEMENT

IN IDAHO.

I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT FROM
HAVING PRACTICED IN FEDERAL

COURT AND I'M GLAD TO SEE WE'RE
DOING IT AT THE STATE LEVEL.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
EXPAND THAT THROUGHOUT THE

STATE.

>> MRS. BRODY, PART OF ONE OF
THE AIMS OF THE NEW SYSTEM IS TO

MAKE COURT DOCUMENTS MORE WIDELY
AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE ALL

THROUGHOUT THE STATE AS THEY
HAVE BEEN IN FEDERAL COURT

ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT THERE YET.

HOW DO YOU VIEW THAT KIND OF
TRANSPARENCY AND WHAT SHOULD WE

BE DOING AS FAR AS TRANSPARENCY
IN OUR COURTS?

>> I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE HAVE

ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENTS
THEMSELVES.

I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
STEVE KENYAN, THE COURT CLERK,

ABOUT THE ODYSSEY SYSTEM AND
ABOUT WHEN THE COURT WILL BE

MOVING TO ACTUALLY MAKING THOSE
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE.

RIGHT NOW OF COURSE THE COURT IS
GETTING ALL OF THE FILINGS

ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE ONLINE AND
ONCE THAT IS UP AND ROLLING I

KNOW THE COURT WILL BE WRESTLING
WITH THE ISSUE HOW DO WE BEST

DELIVER ACTUAL ACCESS TO THE
DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES AND I'M

EXCITED TO BE A PART OF THAT
DISCUSSION.

I'M A PACER USER MYSELF.

THAT'S THE FEDERAL FILING
SYSTEM.

I WOULD LOVE TO PLAY A ROLE IN
MAKING SOME OF THOSE DECISIONS.

>> SENATOR McKENZIE, HOW
TRANSPARENT SHOULD OUR COURT

SYSTEM BE?

HOW EASY SHOULD IT BE TO GET
THOSE RECORDS FOR PEOPLE ACROSS

THE STATE?

>> IN PUBLICLY FILED CASES WHERE
THEY ARE NOT UNDER SEAL, THEY

SHOULD BE VERY ACCESSIBLE TO THE
PEOPLE.

HERE IN IDAHO WE'RE USED TO A
SYSTEM THAT'S LIKE THAT BECAUSE

OF THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
WHERE IT'S VERY EASY TO GET

COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OFF THE
PACER SYSTEM IN PDF FORMS.

THAT'S A VERY USEFUL THING AND
I'M GLAD TO SEE IN IDAHO WE'RE

TART TOKING DO IN THAT --
STARTING TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION

AND MAKE THOSE RECORDS
ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION.

JUSTICES ARE APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT AND APPROVED BY THE

SENATE.

SHOULD THE DECISION BE LEFT TO
VOTERS?

>> YOU KNOW, I'LL TAKE MY
CHANCES WITH THE IDAHO VOTERS

EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

>> SENATOR?

>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE RIGHT
PROCESS FOR IDAHO.

WE HAVE SEEN HOW POLITICAL THAT
APPOINTMENT CAN BE AT THE

FEDERAL LEVEL.

I TRUST THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO TO
MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR IDAHO.

>> OKAY.

THAT'S ABOUT ALL THE TIME WE
HAVE FOR QUESTIONS.

THAT WAS FUN.

WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY LAWYER
JOKES.

THAT WAS GREAT.

IT IS TIME FOR CLOSING
STATEMENTS.

SENATOR McKENZIE, YOU WON THE
COIN TOSS.

YOU GO FIRST.

>> THANK YOU.

AGAIN I WANT TO THANK OUR HOST
FOR HAVING US HERE FOR EACH OF

YOU WHO HAVE WATCHED THIS.

I BELIEVE THAT THE BACKGROUND
THAT I HAVE IN THE LEGISLATURE

HAS GIVEN ME A KNOWLEDGE OF
SEPARATION OF POWERS, IMPORTANT

FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE ON THE
COURT.

IN IDAHO WE HAVE A LONG
TRADITION OF THOSE HAVING SERVED

IN ELECTED OFFICE ALSO BEING ON
OUR COURT.

IT'S AN IMPORTANT ROLE FOR A
JUSTICE TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND

THAT THEIR ROLE IS FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT THAN SETTING POLICY IN

THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

I HAVE A STRONG ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND, STARTED IN IDAHO,

WAS AT GEORGETOWN WHERE I MET
JUSTICE SCALIA.

I STARTED TO UNDERSTAND THE
PHILOSOPHY THAT HE APPLIES TO

CONSTITUTIONAL CASES WHICH I
BELIEVE NOT ONLY APPLIES TO THE

CONSTITUTION BUT EVERY ISSUE
THAT COMES BEFORE THE COURT.

THERE SHOULD BE PREDICTABILITY
UNDER THE RULE OF LAW AND I WILL

PROTECT THAT FOR ALL IDAHOANS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU SENATOR McKENZIE.

MRS. BRODY.

>> YOU KNOW, I HAVE PUT TOGETHER
A COUNTY BY COUNTY ORGANIZATION

TO HELP ME RUN THIS RACE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST,
THERE ARE DEMOCRATS,

REPUBLICANS, INDEPENDENTS, TEA
PARTIERS.

THERE ARE MEN, THERE ARE WOMEN,
THERE ARE YOUNG, THERE ARE OLD,

THERE ARE BLUE COLOR, THERE ARE
PROFESSIONALS.

THERE ARE TEACHERS.

I AM SO PROUD OF THE BROAD
SUPPORT THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO HAVE GIVEN TO ME.

IT'S THE BEST PART OF THIS RACE
BY FAR.

THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE HERE IS
ONE SIMPLY OF EXPERIENCE.

EXPERIENCE MATTERS.

BECAUSE AT THE HEART OF
EXPERIENCE, THAT'S WHAT CREATES

GOOD JUDGMENT.

HAVING THE BROAD BACKGROUND AND
THE DEPTH IS INCREDIBLY

IMPORTANT.

MEETING JUSTICE SCALIA IS AN
INSPIRATION.

BUT IT'S NOT A QUALIFICATION FOR
THIS JOB.

I'M THE PERSON WHO IS THE RIGHT
PERSON FOR THE IDAHO SUPREME

COURT.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU TO BOTH
OF OUR CANDIDATES.

THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR
TONIGHT.

SENATOR McKENZIE, ROBYN BRODY,
THANKO TO OUR PANELISTS.

REMEMBER THE ELECTION IS
NOVEMBER 8th AND YOU CAN VOTE

EARLY THROUGH NOVEMBER 4th.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON VOTING
INCLUDING HOW TO REGISTER AND

WHERE TO FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE
CALL YOUR COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE

OR VISIT IDAHOVOTES.ORG.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

GOODNIGHT.

WE'LL SEE YOU AT THE POLLS.