>> WELCOME TO THE IDAHO DEBATES,
A LOOK AT THE CANDIDATES ON THE

PRIMARY BALLOT FOR THE IDAHO
SUPREME COURT.

THE IDAHO DEBATES 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 BROUGHT TO
YOU BY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE

IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION
ENDOWMENT.

>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE
IDAHO DECADES, LIVE FROM THE

IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION STUDIOS
IN BOISE.

THIS IS OUR FIRST AND ONLY
DEBATE OF THE PRIMARY SEASON BUT

IT'S A GOOD ONE.

AND IT'S THE ONLY TELEVISED
DEBATE WITH ALL FOUR CANDIDATES

VYING TO BE THE STATE'S NEXT
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

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

AS THE FINAL LEGAL AUTHORITY IN
THE STATE.

THEY WORK AS ADMINISTRATORS OF
THE ENTIRE COURT SYSTEM.

THEIR DUTIES ARE PRIMARILY THE
EXECUTION OF FAIR AND IMPARTIAL

DELIBERATIONS ON SOME OF THE
MOST DIFFICULT QUESTIONS IN THE

STATE.

PROTECT EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE
AND PROTECTING THE

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

ROBYN BRODY HAS PRACTICED LANE
THE MANUALIC VALLEY FOR 20

YEARS.

SHE HAS SERVED AS THE PRESIDENT
OF THE 5th DISTRICT BAR

ASSOCIATION AND THE IDAHO TRIAL
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.

SHE GRADUATED FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER COLLEGE OF

LAW AND IS A SOLE PRACTITIONER
AT DENVER LAW OFFICE.

CLIVE STRONG IS CURRENTLY THE
CHIEF OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION.

HE HAS ARGUED TWO CASES BEFORE
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

AND NUMEROUS CASES BEFORE THE
IDAHO SUPREME COURT E. GRADUATED

FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO LAW
SCHOOL.

CURT McKENZIE GRADUATE
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW

CENTER.

HE WORKED ONE YEAR IN THE ADA
COUNTY ARE PROSECUTING

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SIX YEARS
IN CIVIL LITIGATION AT STOEL

RIVES BEFORE OPENING THE
McKENZIE LAW OFFICE.

HE WAS ON THE PUBLIC REFORM
INTERIM COMMITTEE AND WAS

PRESIDENT OF THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST ECONOMIC REGION.

HE SERVED AS DISTRICT JUDGE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT JUDGE

AND NOW SERVES ON THE IDAHO
COURT OF APPEALS.

HE WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE FAIRNESS
AND EQUALITY COMMITMENT AND

COCHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE E. GRADUATED FROM THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
HASTINGS LAW SCHOOL AND HAS

SERVED IN THE JUDICIAL BRAD
CHILDRESS BRANCH SINCE 1983.

ALSO WITH US IS A PANEL OF
REPORTERS FROM THE IDAHO PRESS

CLUB.

THESE THREE DON'T NEED NEARLY AS
LONG AN INTRODUCTION.

BETSY RUSSELL OF THE
"SPOKESMAN-REVIEW."

BECKY BOON.

"POST REGISTER."

>> I'M MOTH MODERATING TONIGHT'S
DEBATE AND WILL DO MY BEST TO

MAKE SURE ALL CANDIDATE GET
EQUAL TIME AND STAY ON POINT.

TO REMIND DOWNSIDE HOW LONG THEY
HAVE BEEN TALKING IS THE

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS.

WE WILL BE MORE FOCUSED ON AN
INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION THAT

HELPS YOU, THE VOTER, CAST A
MORE INFORMED BALLOT.

EACH CANDIDATE WILL BE GIVING
TWO ANOINTS OPENING COMMENT AND

ONE MINUTE FOR CLOSE.

WE DREW STRAWS AND ROBYN BRODY,
THE OPENING HONOR GOES TO YOU.

>> THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES
OUR RIGHTS ON PAPER.

WITHOUT A LEGAL SYSTEM TO
ACTUALLY ENFORCE THOSE RIGHTS,

THE RIGHTS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING.

I'M RUNNING FOR THE IDAHO
SUPREME COURT BECAUSE I BELIEVE

THAT OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE
SUPPOSED TO SERVE AND PROTECT

PEOPLE.

ALL PEOPLE.

WE NEED A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
WHO NOT ONLY HAS GREAT KNOWLEDGE

AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF IDAHO, BUT WHO'S

ALSO CONNECTED TO THE PEOPLE
AFFECTED BY THE DECISIONS THAT

ARE MADE.

I'VE SPENT MY ENTIRE CAREER
DEDICATED TO PROVIDING PEOPLE

WITH ACCESS TO THE LAW.

I REPRESENT THE WIDOW WHO COMES
IN NEEDING HELP GETTING HER

MARRIAGE LICENSE FROM SALT LAKE
CITY, FARMERS, RANCHERS, LOCAL

SCHOOL DISTRICTS, OUR LOCAL
HOSPITAL.

THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF PEOPLE
THAT I REPRESENT.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN AFRAID TO
CLIMB IN THE FOXHOLE WITH THE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO,
AND I'M ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT

ON MAY 17th.

>> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

NEXT OPENING COMMENT COMES FROM
CLIVE STRONG.

>> I WANTED TO THANK PUBLIC
TELEVISION FOR GIVING ME THIS

OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO IDAHO
VOTERS.

SINCE ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM JONES
HIRED ME IN 1983 I'VE HAD THE

OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THE PEOPLE
OF IDAHO FOR THE LAST 33 YEARS.

MY DUTY IS TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND ADVANCE THE

RULE OF LAW WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION OF ANY POLITICAL

OR SPECIAL INTERESTS.

I HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AT THE
STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL FOR

RESOLVING COMPLEX, DECADES OLD
CONFLICTS ON BEHALF OF IDAHOANS.

I BROUGHT A RESOLUTION TO A
CONFLICT THAT EXTENDED BACK TO

THE 1970s OVER A WATER ISSUE
IN THE SNAKE RIVER BASIN.

I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAKE
RIVER BASIN AJUDICATION,

ADJUDICATING 158,000 WATER
RIGHTS, THE LARGEST CIVIL RIGHTS

CASE EVER EXECUTED IN THE STATE
OF IDAHO.

I HAVE REPRESENTED THE STATE OF
IDAHO ON EVERY MAJOR NATURAL

RESOURCE ISSUE FOR THE LAST 20
YEARS.

I INCREASED REVENUE TO PUBLIC
SCHOOLS BY ENFORCING THE

CONSTITUTION AND DRAFTING
LEGISLATION TO MODERNIZE

INVESTING.

I HAVE THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
OF A BROAD RANGE OF PEOPLE AND I

HAVE A -- I AM A PROVEN LEADER
AND I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY

TO CONTINUE TO SERVE.

>> YOUR TIME IS UP.

SENATOR MCKENZIE, YOU'RE UP
NEXT.

>> I'M CURT McKENZIE, MANY OF
YOU MAY KNOW ME FROM MY SERVICE

IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

FEWER KNOW THAT I'M THE THIRD
GENERATION IN MY FAMILY TO GO TO

NNU IN NAMPA.

AFTER I GRADUATED FROM NNU I WAS
OFFERED A FULL SCHOLARSHIP TO

GEORGETOWN'S UNIVERSITY LAW
CENTER.

I GRADUATED IN THE TOP 10% OF MY
CLASS.

I WAS ADMITTED TO THE BARS OF
MARYLAND, WASHINGTON, D.C., AND

THEN IDAHO.

I'VE HAD A VERY DIVERSE LEGAL
PRACTICE.

I'VE WORKED WITH LARGE LAW
FIRMS, I'VE WORKED WITH THE

STATE AS A PROSECUTOR.

I'VE TAKEN OVER 20 JURY TRIALS
TO VERDICT AND I'VE HAD MY OWN

PRACTICE.

IN ADDITION, I'VE HAD A LONG
RECORD OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

I BRING A UNIQUE BACKGROUND FOR
THE CANDIDATES FOR THE COURT.

I'VE GOT A DIVERSE LEGAL
PRACTICE AND A LONG RECORD OF

PUBLIC SERVICE.

THANK YOU.

>> JUDGE GUTIERREZ, THE NEXT
OPENING COMMENT FRIDAYS YOU.

>> THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU
THOSE IN THE TV AUDIENCE THAT

HAVE WELCOMED US INTO YOUR ROOM,
INTO YOUR HOME.

I AM THE SENIOR JUDGE OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS WITH 14 YEARS

OF APPELLATE JUDGE EXPERIENCE.

I SOMETIMES OVERLOOK THE FACT
THAT I WAS A LAWYER ONCE BEFORE,

TOO.

AS A PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYER
WORKING ALSO FOR A PRIVATE FIRM,

AND EVENTUALLY OPERATING A SOLO
PRACTICE.

I APPEARED IN OUR STATE TRIAL
COURTS AND FEDERAL DISTRICT

COURTS BEFORE THE 9TH CIRCUIT
AND ALSO BEFORE THE BOARD OF

IMMIGRATION APPEALS.

AISLE I BELIEVE I HAVE
ACCUMULATED THE EXPERIENCE TO BE

ABLE TO MAKE THE TRANSITION FROM
THE FLOOR -- THE NURSE FLOOR AT

THE COURT OF APPEALS AND READY
TO TAKE THE POSITION OF JUSTICE

WITH THE SUPREME COURT.

THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THE FIRST QUESTION COMES FROM
BETSY RUSSELL FOR SENATOR

MCKENZIE.

>> THE IDAHO CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON

HOW CANDIDATES FOR JUDGE CAN
CAMPAIGN.

MY QUESTION IS ABOUT HOW YOU
INTERPRET THESE RESTRICTIONS,

AND HOW YOU'RE APPROACHING THIS
CAMPAIGN.

SENATOR MCKENZIE, YOU HAVE
CAMPAIGNED ALMOST ENTIRELY TO

REPUBLICAN VOTERS, APPEARING AT
IDAHO REPUBLICAN PARTY LINCOLN

DAY EVENTS AND SEEKING OUT
ENDORSEMENTS FROM YOUR FELLOW

REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS.

YOU'VE CHARACTERIZED YOUR
LINCOLN DAY APPEARANCES AS

MEETING WITH VOTERS.

WHY ARE YOU APPEALING ONLY TO
REPUBLICAN VOTERS WHEN YOU'RE

RUNNING FOR A NONPARTISAN
POSITION ON THE IDAHO SUPREME

COURT?

>> I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT TOMORROW
NIGHT WHEN I'M MEETING WITH THE

BONNEVILLE DEMONSTRATE CRATS.

I INCLUDE NONPARTISAN
ORGANIZATION, THE PROFESSIONAL

FIREFIGHTERS OF IDAHO HAVE
SUPPORTED ME, NOT ONLY FOR MY

WORK IN GETTING CERTAIN
ON-THE-JOB CANCERS COVERED BUT

ALSO PROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
WHICH IS THE LARGEST

ORGANIZATION OF POLICE MEMBERS
IN THE STATE ENDORSED ME FOR MY

WORK PROTECTING OUR FRONT LINE
OFFICERS.

FARM BUREAU, AS WELL.

AND SO THESE ARE NONPARTISAN
ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE

SUPPORTED OUR CANDIDACY AND I
APPRECIATE THEIR SUPPORT.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION 1ST ROBYN
BRODY.

>> MRS. BRODY, YOU'VE ALSO
ACCEPTED HIGH PROFILE

ENDORSEMENTS INCLUDING FROM TWIN
FALLS COUNTY PROSECUTOR GRANT

LOE, AN ACTIVE IDAHO REPUBLICAN
PARTY OFFICIAL.

HOW ARE YOU BALANCING THE NEED
FOR PARTISANSHIP?

>> YOU BET.

BETSY, I'VE LOOKED ALL OVER THE
STATE FOR ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT

ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLE.

GRANT IS A LONG TERM FRIEND AND
A COLLEAGUE WITH WHOM I'VE HAD A

TERRIFIC RELATIONSHIP OVER THE
YEARS.

BEYOND THAT, I'VE BEEN TO
VARIOUS PARTS OF THE STATE,

ADDRESSED DEMOCRATS,
REPUBLICANS, INDEPENDENTS.

BASICALLY IN THIS KIND OF RACE
I'LL TALK TO ANYONE WHO WILL

GIVE ME A MINUTE AND AN EAR TO
LISTEN.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION 1ST CLIVE
STRONG.

>> MR. STRONG, WHILE SENATOR
MCKENZIE HAS DRAWN SOME

TERRORISM SOLICITING
ENDORSEMENTS FROM REPUBLICANS

AND INTEREST GROUPS YOU'VE ALSO
AMASSED HIGH PROFILE

ENDORSEMENTS INCLUDING ONE FROM
THE CURRENT SPEAKER OF THE

HOUSE.

WHY YOU HAVE DO THIS?

COULD IT LEAD TO ANY CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST IF YOU'RE ELECTED TO

THE COURT?

>> IT WAS A REFLECTION ON MY
WORK.

WHEN I JOINED THE OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL I INTENTIONALLY

ACCEPTED A POLICY OF NOT BEING A
PARTISAN POLITICIAN.

I'VE BEEN NONPARTISAN THROUGHOUT
THE 33 YEARS.

I'VE DONE SO BECAUSE I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT IN ADVISING THE

LEGISLATURE, BOTH REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS CAN FEEL CONFIDENT

THAT I'M GIVING THEM IMPARTIAL
ADVICE.

THE PURPOSE OF MY ENDORSEMENTS
WAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT

THROUGHOUT MY EXPERIENCE I HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN IN A

NONPARTISAN POSITION AND GAIN
THE TRUST OF MOST PEOPLE ON BOTH

SIDES OF THE AISLE.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION GOES TO
YOU, SO YOU CAN COMMENT IN YOUR

ANSWER IF YOU'D LIKE.

>> JUDGE GUTIERREZ, YOU HAVE NOT
BEEN PUBLIC ABOUT PROMOTING

ENDORSEMENTS.

WHY NOT?

AND HOW SHOULD VOTERS JUDGE
WHETHER YOU ARE THE CANDIDATE

THEY SHOULD CHOOSE?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL
SO WE DON'T RUN AFOUL OF THE

JUDICIAL CANO NS OF ETHICS THAT
PROVIDE FOR OUR RACES TO BE

NONPARTISAN.

I THINK WE RUN INTO PROBLEMS
WHEN BOTH CANDIDATES AND THE

MEDIA BEGIN TO PORTRAY US AS
POLITICIANS.

WE ARE NOT RUNNING FOR POLITICAL
OFFICE.

WE ARE RUNNING FOR AN ELECTED
JUDICIAL OFFICE.

IN WILLIAMS VERSUS FLORIDA BAR,
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT MADE THE

STATEMENT, JUDGES ARE NOT
POLITICIANS, EVEN WHEN THEY COME

TO THE BENCH BY THE WEIGH OF THE
BALLOT.

BUT I'M AFRAID IT IS INGRAINED
IN OUR CULTURE, EVEN THOUGH

WE'RE JUDGES AND RUNNING FOR A
JUDGE POSITION, WE'RE TREATED AS

POLITICIANS AND WE CONTRIBUTED
TO THAT PROBLEM.

MY APPROACH HAS BEEN NOT SEEK
OUT ENDORSEMENTS WITH THE

KNOWLEDGE THAT AFTER THIS IS
DONE, I'M GOING TO BE A JUDGE

EITHER WAY.

>> YOU HAD A COMMENT, ROBYN
BRODY?

>> I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES WE
POTENTIALLY RUN INTO IN THE

JUDICIARY IS THAT CAREFUL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE

JUDICIARY AND THE LEGISLATURE.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE STAND ON THE
COURTHOUSE STEPS WITH THE

LEGISLATURE, I'M NOT SURE THAT
WE'RE SENDING THE RIGHT MESSAGES

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
IDAHO, THAT THERE'S A CLEAR

DIVISION BETWEEN THE JUDICIARY
AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

WE'VE GOT TO AS A JUDICIARY BE
WILLING TO STAND UP AT TIMES, TO

FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS IN
THE STATE OF IDAHO, WHEN THE

LEGISLATIVE POWERS HAVE
OVERSTEPPED THOSE BOUNDARIES.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO FOND THAT,
CLIVE STRONG?

>> YES, I WOULD.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES

OF GOVERNMENT AND WE NEED TO
WORK WITH THEM ALL.

MY CAREER HAS BEEN TO TRY TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THOSE

THREE BRANCHES OF GROUNDWATER TO
THE WORK TOGETHER.

YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO
BE PARTISAN TO THAT PARTICULAR

BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHEN.

NECESSARY, I'VE TAKEN THE ACTION
TO BRING TO THE LEGISLATURE'S

ATTENTION VIOLATIONS OF
SOMEPLACE OF POWERS, THE WAS

DONE VOUS [INDISCERNIBLE] CASE
IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.

>> SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
RESPOND TO THAT?

>> I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT IN THE ROLE OF A JUDGE

TO APPLY THE CONSTITUTION AS
IT'S WRITTEN, AND APPLY THAT TO

LAWS THAT COME BEFORE IT.

I'VE TRIED TO DO THAT AS A
LEGISLATOR WHEN WE WERE BROUGHT

LAWS THAT APPEARED TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO ME.

PROBABLY THE BIGGEST EXAMPLE
RECENTLY WAS CALLED THE EGG

BILL.

IT WAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS.

SO I THINK THAT MINDSET WOULD
SERVE US WELL ON THE BENCH, AS

WELL.

>> A FINAL COMMENT, THAT IS THAT
JUDICIAL ETHICS SPEAKS TO NOT

ONLY CREATING CONFLICT OF
INTEREST, BUT ALSO THE

PERCEPTION OF CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.

THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE.

>> NETWORKS I REBECCA BOONE FOR
JUDGE GUTIERREZ.

>> I'D LIKE TO KNOW YOUR STANCE
ON HOW TO APPROACH THE BALANCE

OF POWERS WITH THE DIFFERENT
BRANCHES.

FOR INSTANCE, SHOULD COURTS BE
ABLE TO STRIKE ON STATUTES THEY

STILL JEOPARDIZE THE BALANCE OF
POWER?

OR IS IT BEST LEFT AS A
SELF-EQUALIZING BRANCH OF

GOVERNMENT, THAT EVERYBODY JUST
--

>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS DICTATES

WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ACT IN
WHAT FASHION.

IN TERMS OF THE COURT'S ROLL AS
IT RELATES TO THE EXECUTIVE AND

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, IF THERE ARE
STATUTES OR ACTS WHICH ARE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT THAT TIME
THE COURT THEN CAN STEP IN.

>> AS A FOLLOW-UP, HOW MUCH
AUTONOMY SHOULD JUDGES HAVE WHEN

IT COMES TO THAT SORT OF
DECISION-MAKING?

SHOULD JUDGES EVER TAKE POLICY
GOALS, IDEALS OR PUBLIC OPINION

INTO ACCOUNT WHEN MAKING A
RULING?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THE JUDGE'S AUTO ROLE IS TO ONLY
CONSIDERATE LAW AND APPLY THAT

LAW TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE
CASE.

>> I'D LIKE TO YOU HAVE ANSWER
THE SAME QUESTION, MRS. BRODY.

HOW MUCH AUTONOMY DO YOU FEEL
THAT JUDGES SHOULD HAVE AND HOW

DO YOU PROTECT THE BALANCE OF
POWER?

>> I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

KNOW THAT THEY HAVE AN
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

I AGREE THAT IN A SMALL STATE
LIKE IDAHO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT

OUR JUDICIARY AND LEGISLATURE AT
TIMES WORK TOGETHER ON ISSUES

RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM.

AND HOW WE ADMINISTER IT IN
IDAHO.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING
DECISIONS WHEN REVIEWING

LEGISLATION, WHEN REVIEWING
ISSUES ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS,

I THINK THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO
DESERVE TO KNOW THAT THEY HAVE

AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY WHO
ISN'T SUBJECT TO THE WHIMS OR

THE TIDE OF PUBLIC OPINION, OR
POLITICAL INFLUENCE.

WE HAVE TO BE A SEPARATE AND
FIERCELY INDEPENDENT BRANCH IN

ORDER TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF
IDAHO.

>> MR. STRONG, ON THE SAME
TOPIC, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU

THINK ABOUT THE BALANCE OF
POWERS AND JUDICIAL AUTONOMY,

AND WHETHER POLICY GOALS AND
IDEALS SHOULD EVER BE TAKEN INTO

ACCOUNT.

SPECIFICALLY, I'D LIKE TO KNOW
YOUR THOUGHTS SINCE YOU'VE BEEN

INVOLVED IN SO VERY MANY NATURAL
RESOURCE CASES AS A LITIGATOR.

WILL THAT IMPACT OR AFFECT THE
WAY YOU MAKE RULINGS SHOULD YOU

BE ELECTED TO THE SUPREME COURT
ON THOSE ISSUES?

>> I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
ABOUT SEPARATION OF POWERS.

THAT'S AN AREA IN WHICH I HAVE
PRACTICED EXTENSIVELY.

THERE IS NO ROLE FOR THE
JUDICIARY TO INJECT ITS OWN

POWELL INTO THE OUTCOME.

THE ROLE IS TO LOOK TO THE
AUTHORITIES GIVEN TO THE

BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT A BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT STEPS OVER THOSE

BOUNDARIES IT'S FOR THE
JUDICIARY TO CALL BALLS AND

STRIKES.

WASILLA THE BECAUSE DENY VERSUS
LAND BOARD CASE, WE HAD TO SUE

THE LEGISLATURE AND WE WERE
SUCCESSFUL IN DEFENDING AGAINST

THAT ENCROACHMENT.

AND THEN IN THE SNAKE RIVER
BASIN AJUDICATION, WE HAD AN

ISSUE WITH THE RESPECTIVE ROLES
THAT I HAD TO LITIGATION GATE.

AS FAR AS MY BACKGROUND IN
NATURAL RESOURCES, THAT SHOULD

NOT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE IN ANY OF
THE OUTCOMES.

I WILL AS A JUDGE LOOK TO THE
RULE OF LAW AS WRITTEN.

>> SENATOR, I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU
SPEAK ON THE SAME TOPIC,

PARTICULARLY AS A LAWMAKER YOU
HAVE OCCASIONALLY VOTED IN FAVOR

OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFTER
THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN ADVISED

IT WOULD OVERSTEP SOME
CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES.

HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT AS A
JUDGE?

>> I THINK THAT GETS TO A VERY
FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF HOW A

JUSTICE INTERPRETS THE
CONSTITUTION.

IN ONE CAMP IS THAT A MAJORITY
WILL ESTABLISHES WHAT THE RIGHTS

ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

SO THAT WE FORM THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE MAJORITY DETERMINES WHAT

THE RIGHTS ARE.

I THINK THIS APPROACH LEADS TO
WHAT WE'LL CALL A LIVING

DOCUMENT OF CONSTITUTION, WHERE
THE PREVAILING MAJORITY WILL

DETERMINE WHAT THOSE RIGHTS ARE.

AND THE CONTRARY CAMP IS THE
IDEA THAT WE HAVE CERTAIN

INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT EXIST
SEPARATE AND OUTSIDE THE

GOVERNMENT.

AND THAT THOSE CAN'T BE TAKEN
AWAY AND THOSE ARE REFLECTED IN

THE CONSTITUTION.

AND SO IF THERE ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES, THEN

IT'S THE ROLE OF THE COURTS TO
STRIKE THAT DOWN.

I'VE TRIED TO PRACTICE THE SAME
PHILOSOPHY AS A LEGISLATOR.

WE GET ADVICE ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE BILLS ALL THE TIME.

WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION YES
OR NO.

I'VE TRIED TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF
SUPPORTING ONLY THINGS THAT ARE

WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
BOUNDS.

>> JUDGE GUTIERREZ, I HAVE A
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR YOU.

THE THREE OTHER PEOPLE RUNNING
FOR THIS SEAT HAVE BEEN

PRACTICING ATTORNEYS FOR A VERY
LONG TIME.

YOU'VE BEEN IN THE JUDICIARY
SINCE 1993.

IS IT A LITTLE EASIER FOR YOU TO
TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AS YOU DON'T

HAVE AS MANY APPARENT CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST?

>> YOU MIGHT SAY THAT IN PART.

BUT ALSO T WAY THAT I'VE
CONDUCTED MYSELF IN AVOIDING

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST HAS BEEN A
MAJOR EMPHASIS IN THE WAY THAT

I'VE -- THE WAY I HAVE LED MY
CAREER ON A PROFESSIONAL LEVEL.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION 1ST JUDGE
GUTIERREZ FROM BILL.

>> GOOD EVENING, JUDGE.

MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE RULING
IN THE CASE OF JAMES VERSUS

STIFF BOISE.

IN JANUARY A UNANIMOUS SUPREME
COURT SUMMARILY REVERSED THE

IDAHO SUPREME COURT IN THAT
CASE.

THE IDAHO COURT MAINTAINED IT
WAS NOT BOUND BY THE HIGHER

COURT'S RULING WITH A FEDERAL
PARTY IN THE PREVAILING CLAIMS.

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IS
WHETHER OR NOT STATES ARE OR ARE

NOT BOUND.

I WANT TO HERE YOUR ANSWER AND
OPEN IT UP TO THE OTHER

CANDIDATES.

>> I THINK IT'S WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE FEDERAL, WE'RE

BOUND BY IT.

IF IT'S A STATE RIGHT AND AN
ACTION THAT PERTAINS TO STATE

LAW, NOT INVOLVING FEDERAL
AUTHORITY, THEN I THINK IT'S

APPROPRIATE TO DISREGARD THAT.

>> OKAY.

GO DOWN THE LINE, IF WE COULD,
SENATOR MCKENZIE.

>> ONE OF THE LIMITATIONS WE
HAVE IS THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO

SPEAK ON ISSUES THAT COULD
REASONABLY COME BEFORE THE

COUNT.

I CAN SPEAK GENERALLY ABOUT
FEDERALISM.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M
LOOKING AT.

>> AND SO AGAIN IF IT'S WITHIN
THE FEDERAL PURVIEW OF A CASE

WITHIN THAT SYSTEM, THEN AWARDS
CAN BE MADE.

OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE BEYOND THE
AUTHORITY OF THAT COURT.

>> OKAY.

>> I WOULD AGREE THAT WHEN THERE
IS -- THE AUTHORITY IS IN THE

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THAT'S
BEEN INTERPRETED, THE STATE

COURTS ARE BOUND BY THOSE
INTERPRETATIONS.

WHEN IT'S A MATTER WITHIN THE
PREROGATIVE OF THE STATE, IT'S

APPROPRIATE FOR THE STATE COURT
TO RULE ON THAT.

>> ACTUALLY I HAD A UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE COURT TO

ALLOW ME ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION TO ACTUALLY APPEAR

IN AN AMICUS CAPACITY IN THAT
CASE TO TALK TO THE COURT ABOUT

THE RULING.

I BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY IN THE
DIVISION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE

STATES AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.

AND ANY TIME THAT THE STATE'S
RIGHTS ARE INVADE THAT'S A

PROBLEM.

BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN -- THAT

THERE ARE BOUNDARIES TO THAT.

IN THE JAMES CASE WE HAD A
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES OPINION INTERPRETING A
FEDERAL LAW.

IT WAS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND.

IT WAS AN INSTANT WHERE 9 COURT
YORE STEPPED ITS BOUNDARY.

>> I WANT TO DRILL A LITTLE MORE
INTO THE SUBJECT BEFORE I GO

INTO A FOLLOW-UP.

I WANTED TO KIND OF CONTRAST
THAT TO A SIMILAR DYNAMIC, THIS

GOES BACK TO ANOTHER STATE.

AND IF YOU RECALL, AFTER THE
BURGOT HALES DECISION, CHIEF

JUSTICE IN ALABAMA ROY MOORE
INITIALLY REFUSED OR DEFIED THE

COURT IN THAT RULING.

AND IS THAT APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR
FOR A COURT OFFICER?

WE'LL START WITH --
>> JUDGE ROY MOORE, HE REFUSED

TO BE BOUND BY THE DECISION IN
THE CASE, WHICH WAS A SAME-SEX

MARRIAGE CASE.

>> YES.

>> I THINK IF YOU CANNOT AS A
JUDGE FOLLOW THE LAW, THEN I

THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE OFF THE
ROBES.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS GOING
COME FROM REBECCA BOONE ON

DIVERSITY.

IT'S GOING TO GO TO ROBYN BRODY.

>> MRS. BRODY, MULTIPLE STUDIES
HAVE SHOWN HAVING A WOMAN OR

PERSON OF COLOR ON A JUDICIAL
PANEL DOESN'T JUST CHANGE THAT

PARTICULAR SEAT BUT CHANGES THE
TYPE WAS RULINGS THAT COME FROM

THE ENTIRE PANEL.

THE STUDY SHOWS DIVERSITY
CHANGES THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS

AND THE SUBSEQUENT RULES BY THE
COURT.

ABOUT 11% OF IDAHO'S JUDGES ARE
WOMEN, THE LOWEST PERCENTAGE

NATIONWIDE.

DO YOU THINK JUDGES,
PARTICULARLY WOMEN OR MINORITIES

V BEEN GIVEN SHORTLY SH RIFT BY
IDAHO'S COURTS?

>> I'LL TELL WHAT, WE WOULD HAVE
A LOT BETTER DECISION MAKING IN

OUR COURT'S WITH A JUDICIARY
THAT LOOKS AND REFLECTS LIKE OUR

COMMUNITIES.

I HAVE NO DOUBT IN MY MIND.

I KNOW IN MY OWN PRACTICE WHEN I
WORK WITH MEN AND OTHER FOLKS

I'M A BETTER LAWYER, WE MAKE
BETTER DECISIONS AND WE GET

BETTER CULTS FOR OUR CLIENTS.

THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND
THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A REAL

CONCERTED EFFORT.

WHEN WE HAVE QUALIFIED CAPABLE
PEOPLE IN THE JUDICIARY WHO CAN

TAKE ON THESE ROLES IT'S
IMPERATIVE FOR US AS A STATE TO

TAKE ACTION AND HELP PUT US IN
POSITIONS OF LEADERSHIP.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> WE'RE GOING GO TO CLIVE
STRONG FIRST BUT YOU'LL HAVE

YOUR CHANCE TO ANSWER.

>> WITH THAT DIVERSITY IN MIND
WHEN IT COMES TO JUDICIAL

PANELS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT
THE DIVERSITY ON IDAHO'S COURTS?

AND DO YOU THINK YOUR OWN
EXPERIENCES SHOULD OR WOULD HAVE

ANY IMPACT ON DECISIONS YOU
MIGHT MAKES A A JUSTICE?

>> I THINK ETHNIC DIVERSITY AND
CULTURAL DIVERSITY ON THE COURT

IS IMPERATIVE.

IT'S SOMETHING WE SUPPORT BUT
NOT JUST ON THE COURT BUT

THROUGHOUT OUR ENTIRE PRACTICE.

IT'S SOMETHING I TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT AS SUPERVISOR OF THE

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I HAVE MANY VERY EXPERIENCED
FEMALE ATTORNEYS IN MY OFFICE,

MANY OF WHOM HAVE GONE ON TO THE
BENCH BOTH AS MAGISTRATES AND

DISTRICT COURTS.

I HAVE DONE A PROGRAM TRYING TO
FOSTER THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN

WITHIN THE OFFICE.

I HAD A LEGAL SECRETARY I
PERCEIVED HAD THE SKILLS TO BE

AN ATTORNEY.

I ENCOURAGED HER TO GO TO LAW
SCHOOL AND SHE'S NOW WORKING FOR

ME.

>> SENATOR MCKENZIE, YOUR
THOUGHTS ON DIVERSITY IN THE

COURTS.

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, NOT
JUST DIVERSITY GENDER AND

CULTURAL BUT BACKGROUNDS OF
PEOPLE WHO SERVE ON THE COURT.

ONE OF THE ROLES OF OUR
SUPERIORITY IS TO ADMINISTER OUR

COURT SYSTEM AND TO DEVELOP
THOSE DISTRICT JUDGE AND

MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND OTHER
JUDGES THAT REFLECT THEIR

COMMUNITIES.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE TO WORK ON.

>> JUDGE GUTIERREZ, I THINK YOU
RECENTLY RELATED AN INCIDENT TO

BETS SEE ABOUT COURT
INTERPRETERS, AND HOW YOUR

EXPERIENCE WITH THE MINORITY ON
THE COURT HELPED YOU IDENTIFY A

PROBLEM THAT SOME OF THE
INTERPRETATIONS WEREN'T CORRECT.

WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT
WHETHER THAT'S A CRUCIAL ROLE

THAT SHOULD BE FOSTERED.

>> I THINK THAT'S VITAL, NOT
ONLY IN THE JUDICIAL AND

DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, BUT
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT

IMPACT THE ENTIRE CITIZENRY.

AND THIRD IS THE FACT THAT I
BELIEVE IT ADDS AUTHENTICITY TO

THE COURT AND WHAT IT STANDS,
FOR AND THAT IS JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> REBECK CAR, YOU HAD A
FOLLOW-UP?

>> I DID, YES.

SO WHAT ABOUT -- WHAT DO YOU
THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT

ASPECT OF REPRESENTING THE STATE
IN THE COURT'S THAT WE'RE

CURRENTLY MISSING?

WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO
INCREASE DIVERSITY?

>> WE FOUND OUT THE JUDICIAL
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION SURVEY

OR REPORT THAT WE WERE OPERATING
UNDER A PERCEPTION BY THE BAR

THAT FOLKS WERE DISQUALIFYING
THEMSELVES FROM APPLYING TO THE

BENCH THAT.

INCLUDED WOMEN AND MINORITIES.

AND SO WE NEED TO WORK ON
ELIMINATING THOSE BARRIERS,

THOSE PERCEPTIONS AND ALSO DOING
MORE ON THE REGROUP END TO HAVE

A PILLOW ACTIVE SUPREME COURT ON
THAT ISSUE.

WE HAVE WITH THE DIVERSITY
SECTION A PIPELINE PROGRAM

GEARED TOWARDS DISARRANGED HIGH
SCHOOL KIDS, STARTING EARLY

HOPING TO CREATE A PIPELINE TO
DIVERSITY FYE BOTH 9 BAR AND

BENCH.

>> MR. STRONG, YOU TALKED ABOUT
DIVERSITY OF PRACTICE AND ALSO

PEOPLE WITHIN YOUR PRACTICE.

DOES THAT HAVE THE SAME -- DOES
HIRING SAY CLERKS WHO ARE

MINORITIES, OR WOMEN, HAVE THE
SAME SORT OF IMPACT THAT HAVING

A BROADER REPRESENTATION WITHIN
THE JUDICIARY ITSELF?

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
HAVE A BROADER REPRESENTATION

WITHIN THE JUDICIARY.

BUT YOU HAVE TO BUILD FROM THE
BOTTOM UP.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

EVERY ONE OF US HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO FOSTER THAT

ENVIRONMENT.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN ENVIRONMENT
THAT WOULD INVITE THAT KIND OF

INCLUSIVE.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S OBVIOUS
TO THE FOLKS IN THE TV AUDIENCE

THAT IN FACT WE'RE -- THE
SUPREME COURT IN IDAHO IS ONE OF

TWO OR THREE COURTS IN THE
COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY

GENDER REPRESENTATION OR PEOPLE
OF COLOR REPRESENTATION.

>> NEXT QUESTION FROM BETSY
RUSSELL.

>> THIS QUESTION IS FOR MRS.

BRODY.

YOU'RE THE ONLY CANDIDATE AMONG
THESE FOUR COMING TO THE RACE

WITHOUT A SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND
IN GOVERNMENT.

SHOULD VOTERS CONSIDER THAT A
PRO OR A CON AND WHY?

>> WELL, PROBABLY MY ONLY
SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND IN

GOVERNMENT WOULD BE SUING THE
GOVERNMENT.

FROM MY WORLD I VIEW IT AS A
PLUS.

WHEN I TALKED ABOUT IN THE
BEGINNING ABOUT CRAWLING INTO

THE FOXHOLE WITH THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF IDAHO, THAT'S

EXACTLY WHERE I'M COMING FROM.

DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M NOT A
CONTRARIAN, I'M ALL ABOUT SAYING

YES AND PROVIDING PEOPLE WITH
ACCESS AND BASIC RIGHTS.

I GUESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
EVEN TAKING ON THIS RACE, I

VIEWED THIS AS A CHANCE TO VOTE
WITH THE PEOPLE.

I PUT MY TRUST IN THE PEOPLE
EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK.

>> AND MR. STRONG, YOUR
BACKGROUND IN GOVERNMENT IS

QUITE EXTENSIVE.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN US A
APPROACH THE ROLE OF AN IDAHO

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

>> I THINK I WOULD BRING
SOMETHING UNIQUE TO THE IDAHO

SUPERIORITY WITH MY GOVERNMENTAL
EXPERIENCE.

I UNDERSTAND HOW THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND

JUDICIARY INTERACT.

I UNDERSTAND HOW PROBLEMS ARISE
AND HOW TO AVOID THEM AS YOU GO

FORWARD.

THERE IS NOBODY ON THE COURT
WITH THAT BACKGROUND IN

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW THAT CAN COME
FORWARD AND PROVIDE THAT

BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE TO THE
COURT.

I THINK MY GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE
IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT'S

NEEDED ON THE COURT.

>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO SENATOR
MCKENZIE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR

YOU, MR. STRONG.

YOU HAVE WORKED IN THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR 30 YEARS

NOW, SINCE 1983.

YOU HAVE WORKED WITH MILLIMETER
OF THE PEOPLE WHO END UP

REPRESENTING THE STATE IN FRONT
OF THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT.

SO WILL YOU BE WILL TO LOOK AT
THOSE OR WILL YOU HAVE TO RECUSE

YOURSELF FROM EVERYTHING THE
IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

HAS TOUCHED?

>> I THINK IF YOU LOOK THE
ANSWER IS THERE.

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT EXCEEDS ITS
BOUNDARIES I'VE BEEN WILLING TO

TAKE ON THE CASE AND ARGUE IT.

WHEN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
ABANDONLORD EXCEEDED THEIR

AUTHORITIES, I PREPARED THOSE
CASES.

WHEN THERE WAS A CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE JUDICIARY AND THE

LEGISLATURE, I PROSECUTED THAT
CASE.

I THINK MY REPORT DEMONSTRATES
WHEN NECESSARY I'M RILLING TO

TAKE THE STEPS TO MAKE SURE WORD
GOVERNMENTS WILL CONTINUE THE

LAW.

>> I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT
ISSUE.

I THINK THERE ARE CASES THAT MY
OPPONENT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN

EXTENSIVELY, AND WHERE IT'S NOT
JUST A MATTER OF BEING IN THE

OFFICE WHERE THOSE CASES HAVE
BEEN HANDLED.

BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT REAL
INTIMATE DAY-TO-DAY INVOLVEMENT.

AND THOSE DISPUTES ARE LIKELY TO
PERCOLATE UP THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

>> BUT ONE OF THE INCLINED THAT
YOU ERUPTED MRS. BRODIE, HAS

BEEN RANKIN WATER WHICH HAS HAD
TWO CASES IN THE IDAHO SUPREME

COURT.

IF THEY ARE THERE AGAIN WILL YOU
BE ABLE TO LOOK AT POTHOLES

WATER ISSUES IMPARTIALLY?

>> NO, I WOULD HAVE TO RECUSE
MYSELF FROM ANY ISSUE INVOLVING

MY CLIENT, ANY ISSUE AT ALL.

>> SENATOR MCKENZIE, YOUR
BACKGROUND IN GOVERNMENT HAS

BEEN IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

FOR 14 YEARS YOU WERE A MEMBER
OF A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT

DID NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH.

HOW DO YOU BRING THAT EXPERIENCE
TO A POSITION AS A SUPERIORITY

JUDGE?

>> I THINK 8 USEFUL BACKGROUND
TO HAVE, TO BE BOTH ONE OF THE

LONGER SERVING STATE SENATORS AS
WELL AS HAVING AN ACTIVE

PRACTICE IN THE LAW.

WE'VE HAD OTHER JUSTICES WITH
THAT BACKGROUND, JUSTICE

MCDEVITT WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE,
JUSTICE JONES WAS AN ELECTED

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I THINK THOSE TYPES OF
BACKGROUND HELP INFORM YOUR

DECISIONS AND UNDERSTAND THE
CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE

DIFFERENT BRANCHES.

AND SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD
BACKGROUND TO HAVE, AND

CERTAINLY HELPS ME UNDERSTAND
HOW OUR LAWS GET TO THE COURT,

JUST LIKE HAVE A TRIAL PRACTICE
HELPS ME UNDERSTAND THE WAY

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES ARISE AND
COME BEFORE THE COLT.

>> YOUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IN
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH FOR MANY

YEARS.

SO HOW AS A SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE WOULD YOU APPROACH THE

EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH?

>> WELL, WITH MUCH RESPECT, AS
WE ARE ALL EQUAL BRANCHES OF

GOVERNMENT.

BUT ALSO WITH THE IDEA THAT SOME
PROBLEMS ARE NOT BEST RESOLVED

BY LAWSUITS OR CASES BUT RATHER
BY WORKING TOGETHER.

AND TO THAT EXTENT I WOULD DO MY
WORK AS A JUSTICE IN DECIDING

CASES.

BUT ALSO BE LOOKING TO
PARTICIPATE IN COLLABORATIVE

WORKING TOWARDS SOLUTIONS.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT MY
BACKGROUND AS A LAWYER ALSO

INCLUDES THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE OF LAW.

AND ALSO SAY THAT ONE OF THE
BENEFITS FROM BEING A JUDGE THIS

MANY YEARS IS THAT I'VE BEEN
ABLE TO SEE THE CHANGE IN OUR

COURT SYSTEM.

WE OPERATE MUCH DIFFERENTLY
TODAY THAN WE DIN 1983.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT THE
DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT

WORKING TOGETHER.

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW
THEY CAN DO THAT, AND THAT IS

APPROPRIATE?

>> IT IS, IT IS.

I WAS A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNOR'S
JUSTICE APPEALS COMMISSION AND

ONE OF THE ACTION WES TOOK WAS
TO BRING IN AN OUTSIDE GROUP TO

EVALUATE OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER
SYSTEM.

THAT IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
AREA TO ADDRESS AS WE TALKED

ABOUT ACTIVITY ISSUES.

I THINK IT WAS JUSTICE BRYER WHO
MENTIONED IN THE CASE, ONLY 27%

OF OUR COUNTY FUND OF PUBLIC
DEFENDERS IN THE COUNTRY ARE

REALLY OPERATING AS THEY SHOULD.

WITH OF THE WORK IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE COMMISSION, THAT'S AN

EXAMPLE OF HOW THAT CAN BE
ACHIEVED.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM
BILL DENSER.

>> RIGHT, ROBYN BRODY.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE
STATE'S TOP JUDICIAL OFFICERS.

I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM YOU AND
THE REST OF THE CANDIDATES WHAT

SOME OF THE CHALLENGES ARE THAT
FACE THE IDAHO JUDICIARY OVER

THE NEXT DECADE.

ARE THERE ENOUGH JUDGES?

ARE THEY PAID ENOUGH?

IS THE SYSTEM WORKING WELL?

IS IT OVERBURDENED, WHAT NEEDS
TO BE ADDRESSED.

>> WELL, ABSOLUTELY THE TURNOVER
OF JUMPS IN GOING TO BE AN

INCREDIBLE ISSUE THAT WE FACE.

I BELIEVE IT'S NEARLY 50% OF THE
JUDGES ARE GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE

FOR RETIREMENT OVER THE NEXT
FIVE YEARS.

FRANKLY I'M HOPING THAT ME
JUDGING INTO THIS RACE WILL GIVE

SOME OTHERS THE DESIRE TO MAKE
WANT TO JUMP INTO THE JUDICIARY,

AND MAYBE THE NOTION THAT IT'S
POSSIBLE, IT'S DOABLE.

THE OTHER BIG FACT IS
IMPLEMENTING TECHNOLOGY

THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

WE'VE GOT 43 MORE COUNTIES YOU
TO GO AND THAT'S AN ENORMOUS

UNDERTAKING.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION 1ST CLIVE
STRONG.

>> I BELIEVE THE BIGGEST ISSUE
CONFRONTING THE COURT IS ACCESS

TO THE COURT AND IN A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT WAYS.

WE'RE IN THE PROCESS AS MRS.

BRODY SAID, OF TRYING TO
IMPLEMENT AN IMAGING SYSTEM AND

CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

THOSE ARE THINGS I IMPLEMENTED
23 YEARS AGO IN THE SNAKE RIVER

AJUDICATION.

I HAVE THAT KIND OF MANAGEMENT
EXPERIENCE AND ALSO CASE

MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE.

THE OTHER COST 6 ACCESS WAS THE
COST AND TIME AFTER SEEING THE

WORK.

WE HAVEN'T TAILORED THE SYSTEM
TO THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS.

>> AND LIKE WISE ON THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SIDE, WE HAVE A LOT OF

DEDELAYS.

SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS OR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS ARE

PROVIDING WAYS TO SUGGEST DRAYS
ON THE CRIMINAL AUTO SIDE.

SOME OF THOSE ARE THINGS TO
THINK ABOUT.

>> IT'S KIND OF AN EXCITING TIME
FOR IDAHO WITH OUR JUSTICE

SYSTEM.

WE'RE GOING THROUGH SOME
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.

TO THE PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM THE
BIGGEST CHANGE IN DECADES IN THE

STATE, MAKING SURE PEOPLE ARE
PROPERLY PROTECTED AS THEY GO

THROUGH THE COURT TESTIMONY THE.

OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES
WE'VE HAD OUR PROBLEM-SOLVING

COURTS, I'VE SPENT HOURS WITH
MENTAL HEALTH COURT, DRUG COURT,

VETERANS COURT.

THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT WAY OF
HOW PEOPLE INTERACT WITH OUR

COURT SYSTEM.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO KEEP
WORKING ON.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS A GOT A
RECRUITMENT.

AND ENSURE OUR JUDGESES THAT
JUDGES ARE NOT DELAYED FOR OTHER

PEOPLE.

>> I THINK AS -- TO GIVE YOU AN
EXAMPLE, SINCE 1993, WHILE WE'VE

ADDED JUDGES WE HAVE NOT YET
ADDED ANY ADDITIONAL STAFF TO

THE CLERK'S OFFICE AT THE
SUPREME COURT.

AND AN INCREASE IN CASELOADS ALL
THE TIME.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS WITH THE
INCREASING DIVERSITY IN THE

STATE DEMOGRAPHICALLY, ADA
COUNTY FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE LAST

TWO YEARS HAS BEEN AVERAGING
ABOUT 50 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES

NEEDED, DIFFERENT LANGUAGES FOR
OUR CLERK TO OPERATE AND PROVIDE

THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED
INTERPRETERS.

IT IS VERY HIGH QUALITY.

THE OTHER AREA ON THE ACCESS
ISSUE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE

PUBLIC DEFENDER ISSUE.

THE PROBLEM ACROSS THE COUNTRY
IS THE DECLINING OF CIVIL

JUSTICE.

PART OF IT IS THE CLOSET OF AN
INCREASE IN LEGISLATION A. YOU

WOULD ASK A YOUNG PERSON, AND HE
WOULD SAY NO, WE COULD NOT.

FOLKS ARE HAVING TO TURN
ELSEWHERE TO GET THEIR CONFLICTS

AND CLAIMS RESOLVED.

>> JUDGE GUTIERREZ, I HAVE A
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR YOU.

THE STATE OF IDAHO IS CURRENTLY
BEING SUED OVER ITS PUBLIC

DEFENSE SYSTEM.

YOU'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY IN IDAHO SINCE 1993.

HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY DOES THE
JUDICIARY HAVE FOR THE STATE'S

PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM?

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
BECAUSE IT'S THE JUDGE'S ROLE TO

ENSURE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
RIGHTS GIVEN THE DEFENDANTS ARE

AFFECTED.

WHETHER SOMEBODY ELSE HAS
RESPONSIBILITIES, THE COURTS

HAVE TO ACT.

FROM A TRIAL JUDGE PERSPECTIVE.

MY VIEW OF A LAWYER WHO IS NOT
PERFORMING, I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE

ACTION IN THAT REGARD.

>> AND SENATOR MCKENZIE, I'M
HOPING TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON

THAT, TOO.

>> THIS IS AN ISSUE BESSIE
RAISED EARLIER, THE SCIENTIFIC

GRANT AND THE TESTING BRANCH.

THAT TAKES FUNDING AND STANDARDS
IN THE GRANTS WHICH WE DIDN'T

HAVE FOR DECADES IN THE STATE.

I'VE SERVED FOR THE LAST COUPLE
YEARS AND NOW WE HAVE STANDARDS

FOR WHAT' FUNDED.

>> THE TWO BRANCHES HAVE TO WORK
TOGETHER IN ORDER TO SOLVE IT.

>> WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WE WERE A STATE THAT VERY EARLY
ON RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT FOR

PEOPLE TO HAVE A PUBLIC
DEFENDER.

IT WAS ALWAYS PROVIDED AT THE
COUNTY LEVEL.

IT WAS THAT LAWSUIT THAT WAS
MENTIONED THAT BROUGHT IT TO THE

ATTENTION OF THE STATE AND GOT
THE ACTION IN ORDER TO MOVE

FORWARD.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM
REBECCA BOONE TO CLIVE STRONG.

>> JUDGE GUTIERREZ TALKED ON
THIS A BIT BUT I'D LIKE TO

AGREED YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS.

WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK PRO BONO
WORK SHOULD PLAY IN THE IDAHO

JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

IDAHO LEGAL AIDS THAT FREQUENTLY
SAID THEY ARE STRUGGLING FOR

FUNDING.

ATTORNEY RESOURCE EXPECTED TO DO
A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PRO BONO

WORK GENERALLY.

>> WELL, AS A PROFESSIONAL WE
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HELP SERVE

THE PUBLIC.

I'M VERY MUCH COMMITTED TO THE
IDEA OF PRO BONO WORK AND I

THINK THE BAR HAS ATTEMPTED TO
JUDGER IN A SPECIFIC WAY.

WHETHER WE NEED MORE, IT IS
SOMETHING I THINK WE NEED TO

LOOK AT AND WE NEED TO FOSTER.

>> YOU NEW YORK CITY I WAS
RECENTLY AT A CANDIDATE FORUM.

DENNIS VOORHEES ACTUALLY RAISES
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER WE NEED A

MECHANISM OR A WAY FOR
NONLAWYERS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE

LEGAL SERVICES TO FOLKS.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE'VE DEFINITELY GOT TO EXPLORE.

THE REALITY IS THIS, ESPECIALLY
IN PLACES WHERE I LIVE, LIKE IN

RUPERT, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ACCESS
TO BASIC THINGS LIKE INTERNET

SERVICES, BEING ABLE TO FAX A
BASIC LETTER TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT

COMMISSION TO, HEALTH AND
WELFARE.

I KNOW LAWYER RESOURCE DOING THE
SAME THING WORKS OPEN UP OUR

DOORS AND HELP IN ANY WAY WE
CAN.

I THINK THE BAR HAS A WHOLE HAS
GOT LOOK AT CREATIVE WAYS OF

PROVIDING PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO
THE LAWYER.

>> MR. STRONG, DO YOU THINK
ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO

DO PRO BONO WORK?

YOU MENTIONED HAVING INDIVIDUALS
WHO AREN'T ATTORNEYS PERHAPS

TAKE ON SOME OF THIS ROLE.

DOES THAT CREATE KIND OF A LOWER
TIER OF LESS EFFECTIVE

REPRESENTATION THEN?

>> WELL, I'VE SEEN INCREDIBLERY
EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION FROM

NONLAWYERS, PARTICULARLY FOR
EXAMPLE IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY

SYSTEM.

I AGREE THAT IT'S A VERY
DIFFICULT FOOL STRIKE.

THAT IS, HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE
THAT YOU'VE GOT CONFIDENT, CABLE

OF PEOPLE.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, PUTTING A
NUMBER SAYING A LAWYER HAS TO

PROVIDE SO MANY HOURS OF PRO
BONO SERVICE EVERY YEAR, I DON'T

THINK THAT GETS US ANYWHERE
TOWARDS WHAT WE'RE REALLY

TALKING ABOUT, HELPING PEOPLE
WITH FUNDAMENTAL ACCESS TO THE

COURTS.

I THINK IT'S BIGGER ATLANTA JUST
A PRO BONE NATIONAL.

>> YES, I THINK IT HAS TO BE
CRATES BY TWO GROUPS.

WE SEE HOW THE WORK IS BEING
DONE IN CLINICS AND LAW SCHOOLS.

OTHER STATES ARE BEGINNING TO DO
THAT, FOCUSING ON CERTAIN AREAS

OF THE LAW, SUCH AS FOR FAMILY
LAW PURPOSES.

>> SENATOR INCOME KENZIE.

>> JUST TO GET BACK TO THE PRO
BONO WORK.

WE NOW HAVE TWO LAW SCHOOLS IN
THE POPULATION CENTER OF THE

STATE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THEY DID VERY
WELL WITH WAS CLINIC PROGRAMS.

STUDENTS GET EXPERIENCE
THEMSELVES AND BENEFIT THE

COMMUNITY THROUGH THEIR LEGAL
SERVICE AS WE EXPAND THOSE

CLINIC PROGRAMS.

>> YOU WANTED TO WEIGH IN, MR.

STRONG.

>> JUST ONE QUICK THOUGHT.

ONE APPROACH TO DOING THAT IS
THROUGH AN INCENTIVE BASED

APPROACH THROUGH THE OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WE MAKE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PEOPLE IN THE STAFF TO DO THAT

KIND OF FIRM, THAT WOULD BE A
WAY TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE FROM

WORKING IN THE PRO BONO PROGRAM.

>> ONE LONG-STANDING TENSION IS
ADVANCE PARAPHERNALIACY VERSUS

PRIV ADVOCACY.

WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS AND THE PUBLIC'S

ACCESS TO THEM, AS WELL AS
CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM?

>> THE ACCESS TO FEDERAL
DOCUMENTS, THE PUBLIC HAS A

GREAT SOLUTION TO WHERE
EVERYONE'S FILED ELECTRONIC LEE

AND IT'S EASY TO CEO THOSE IN
FORM OR DOCUMENTS.

WHEN IT ISSUE IS THE COURTROOM
THE OVERRIDING ISSUE OF

TRANSPARENCY IS IMPORTANT.

THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE IT'S
INAPPROPRIATE, JUVENILE CASES,

CASES WHERE THEY HAVE SEALED
INFORMATION, SOMETHING LIKE

THAT.

THE OVERALL SHOULD BE OPENNESS
IN THE COURTROOM.

>> CLIVE STRONG, IF YOU COULD
ADDRESS THE SAME THING.

>> CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM,
ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS.

>> THEY HAVE A MEDIA IN THE
COURT'S COMMITTEE, A MANUAL THAT

HELPS THEM UNDERSTAND THE MEDIA
OPEN PLACE AND OPENLY EMBRACE

THE IDEA OF HAVING CAMERAS IN
THE COURTROOMS.

THAT CREATES TRUST AMONGST THE
PUBLIC.

THERE ARE PROTECTIONS THAT WILL
ALLOW THE JUDGE IF NECESSARY TO

PUT LIMITS ON THE CAMERA IN THE
COURTROOM IN ORDER TO PROTECT

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

>> SAME QUESTION.

>> BETSY, I THINK THE ANSWERS
THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN WOULD COME

FROM ME, AS WELL.

JUST BALANCING ACCESS AND
OPENNESS IN THE COURTS WITH --

WITH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IS
IMPORTANT.

I THINK THE MEDIA GUIDE GOES A
LONG WAYS TOWARDS DOING THAT.

>> JUDGE GUTIERREZ, ANYTHING
ELSE?

>> I THINK IT'S GRADE THAT WITH
MOVE FURTHER IN THAT DIRECTION.

NOW WE JUST NEED THE GET THE
COURT OF APPEALS IN THERE JUST

NOW.

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL
TO JUDGES, WE KNOW WE HAVE TO

BALANCE ACCESS.

BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT JUDGES
REALIZE THAT WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE

IN THE WORK THAT WE DO.

IN FACT, I THINK WE CREATE A
MORE INFORMED CITIZENRY.

>> THE NEXT QUESTION FRIDAYS
REBECCA BOONE TO CLIVE STRONG.

>> MR. STRONG, WHEN SOMEONE IS
ON A PANEL OF JUDGES THEY HAVE

TO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THEIR
PIERCE ON THAT PANEL.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOUR
DECISION MAKING PROCESS WOULD

BE.

YOU'D READ THE BRIEF, HEAR THE
ARGUMENTS AND LOOK AT THE CASE

LAW.

>> I WOULD APPROACH IT THE WAY I
ROE PROCEEDED MY PRACTICE.

I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN TOM OF THE
MOST ASSESSMENT CASES.

THE WAY I APPROACH THAT IS TO
SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO ALL THE

PARTIES AND TRY TO FIND A WAY
THAT WE COULD FIND COMMON

GROUND.

ON THE SUPREME COURT I WOULD
APPROACH IT THE SAME WAY.

THERE ARE FIVE JUSTICES, ALL OF
WHOM HAVE THEIR INDEPENDENT

VIEWS.

WE OUGHT TO DISCUSS THEN: YOU
OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DISAGREE BUT

DO IT IN AN AGREEABLE FASHION.

>> SENATOR MCKENZIE.

>> I'D SAY SIMILAR.

OBVIOUSLY YOU NEED TO BE TRUE TO
YOUR VIEW OF THE FACTS AND LAW

BEFORE YOU, TRY TO REACH
CONSENSUS ON THE ISSUES THAT YOU

CAN.

IF YOU NEED TO DO A SEPARATE
CONCURRENCE OR A DESCENT,

OBVIOUSLY YOU DO THAT.

BUT WORKING TOGETHER, TRYING TO
DO SO IN A COLLEGIAL MANNER, YOU

KNOW, I TRY TO SEPARATE
PERSONALITIES FROM ISSUES.

I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE
TO NAME-CALL THE OTHER JUSTICES

OR CALL OUT PEOPLE WHO COME
BEFORE THE COURT.

ONE OF THE JUSTICES I'VELESS
ADMIRED FROM HIS INTELLIGENCE

AND PHILOSOPHY, EDYT JUSTICE SKA
LEAH, WOULD FOLLOW UP HIS

QUESTIONING OF PEOPLE WITH A
SHARP WITH IT.

>> I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE AN
EXCELLENT STUDENT.

WHEN YOU START OUT A NEW JOB OR
A NEW ENDEAVOR WITH ANYTHING,

THE FIRST THING YOU'VE GOT DO
IS TAKE STOCK, TAKE STOCK OF HOW

THINGS WORK AND THE PEOPLE AND
LEARN FROM THERE.

YOU CAN REALLY START TO FLUENT I
THINK AND HAVE A LEADING VOTED

IN THE DECISION MAKING.

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
ESTABLISH GOT A HEALTHY

RELATIONSHIPS.

AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS
SEEING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

JUSTICE GINSBERG AND JUSTICE SKA
LEE I CAN'T.

THEY WERE MANY TIMES ON OPPOSITE
SIDES BUT THEY RESPECT ONE

ANOTHER WHEN IT COMES TO THE
ISSUES INVOLVED.

>> THAT HOUR FLEW BY QUICKLY!

ROBYN BRODY, PLEASE GIVE YOUR
CLOSING REMARKS, YOU'LL HAVE 60

SECONDS.

>> THE BEST PART OF THIS
CAMPAIGN IS THAT I HAVE BEEN ALL

OVER THE STATE I'VE HAD THE
CHANCE TO GO TO PLACES I NEVER

WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE GONE TO.

I MET PEOPLE I NEVER OTHERWISE
WOULD HAVE METHOD.

I'VE BEEN FROM PORT HILL AT THE
CANADIAN BORDER OVER TO ST.

ANTHONY.

THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO WANT THE
SAME THINGS IN A JUDICIARY.

THEY WANT OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE
COURTS AND JUSTICES AND JUDGES

WHO APPLY THE LAW FAIRLY AND
CONSISTENTLY.

I WOULD LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SERVE ON THE IDAHO SUPREME

COURT.

I KNOW THAT WHEN MEN AND WOMEN
WORK TOGETHER THAT WE MAKE

BETTER DECISIONS.

WE GET BETTER RESULTS FOR OUR
CLIENTS.

WE'RE BETTER ABLE TO SERVE THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.

I WANT TO THANK THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS OF IDAHO, BOISE

STATE UNIVERSITY, THE IDAHO
PRESS CLUB, AND IDAHO PUBLIC

TELEVISION FOR HELPING TO
EDUCATE IDAHO VOTERS AND HELPING

ALL OF US UNDERSTAND THE VITAL
ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT TODAY.

I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR VOTE ON
MAY 17th.

>> THANKS SO MUCH.

CLIVE STRONG.

>> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, THE

IDAHO PRESS CLUB, THE IDAHO
PUBLIC TELEVISION AND BSU FOR

PROVIDING THIS FORUM SO WE CAN
TALK TO THE VOTERS.

THE ELECTION THAT'S COMING
FORWARD IS GOING TO BE AN

IMPORTANT ELECTION.

DURING THE NEXT SIX YEARS THE
IDAHO SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO

BE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE SERIOUS
AND COMPLICATED CONSTITUTIONAL

LAW ISSUES THAT WILL AFFECT THE
LAW WAS ALL IDAHOANS.

MY EXPERIENCE IN THESE AREAS
WOULD BE INVALUABLE IN DECIDING

THOSE DISPUTES.

WITH MY STATEWIDE PRACTICE
EXPERIENCE I WOULD BE ABLE TO

UNDERSTAND THE CULTURAL,
ECONOMIC AND GEOGRAPHIC

DIFFERENCES THAT EXIST IN IDAHO.

I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES THAT
BOTH UNIT AND DIVIDE IDAHO.

I LOOK FORWARD TO FOSTERING AN
INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT AT THE

COURT.

I WOULD NOT ALLOW MY PERSONAL
PREFERENCES TO INFLUENCE ANY

DECISIONS AND WOULD BE
ACCOUNTABLE ONLY TO THE PEOPLE

OF IDAHO.

REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL
CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY FOLLOW, MY

CAMPAIGN IS BASED UPON GRASS
ROOTS SUPPORT AND I WOULD

APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AS WE GO
FORWARD.

AND THE VOTE ON MAY 17th.

>> I THINK I BRING A UNIQUE
BACKGROUND OF A STRONG ACADEMIC

FOUNDATION, A LONG HISTORY OF
PUBLIC SERVICE AND A DIVERSE

LEGAL PRACTICE.

MORE THAN THAT, I BRING A LOVE
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.

I CAME HERE FOR COLLEGE, TO PLAY
SOCCER AND TO RUN TRACK.

I STAYED HERE BECAUSE THIS IS
WHERE I WANTED MY FAMILY TO BE.

AND NOW I'VE GOT THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SERVE ON THE COURT.

I'M NOT RUNNING AGAIN FOR THE
SENATE.

I'VE GIVEN THAT UP.

AND NOW NOT ONLY DO I WANT TO
SERVE THE DECISION-MAKING BODY

OF THE COURT BUT TO ADMINISTER
THE COURT SYSTEM.

I'VE BEEN AT THE TRIAL COURT
LEVEL, BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES OF

THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES.

THAT'S WHERE MOST PEOPLE
INTERACT WITH THE COURTS UP

HERE.

I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR
THEM TO FEEL LIKE IT IS FAIR AND

IMPARTIAL AND I'LL WORK FOR
THAT.

THANK YOU.

>> JUDGE GUTIERREZ.

>> THANK YOU TO ALL THOSE
RESPONSIBLE TO MAKING THIS

POSSIBLE.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THOSE IN
THE TV AUDIENCE, IN THE MAY

PRIMARY, WE COULD HAVE SOMEONE
SELECTED TO FILL THIS POSITION

IF YOU GET 50% PLUS ONE OF THE
VOTES.

IN TERMS OF MY VIEW OF WHAT'S
CRITICAL, I THINK IT'S

EXPERIENCE.

AND I BRING A UNIQUE PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE.

I'VE BEEN AN IMMIGRANT A HIGH
SCHOOL DROPOUT, FACING MANY

CHALLENGES AND BEING ABLE TO
RISE TO THE SECOND HIGHEST COURT

IN OUR STATE.

ALSO BECAUSE I'VE BEEN A JUDGE
FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS, I THINK

I'M PRETTY WELL TESTED.

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO
GET, THERE'S NO GUESSING.

I WOULD ASK YOU TO VOTE FOR ME
ON MAY 17th.

>> ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL THE
TIME WE HAVE FOR TONIGHT.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR WATCHING.

WE'LL SEE YOU AT THE POLLS.

*
*

Captioning Performed By
LNS Captioning
www.LNScaptioning.com

*
*

>> THE IDAHO DEBATES 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 DECADES ARE BROUGHT TO
YOU BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION
ENDOWMENT.