The race for the position of chief justice in Arkansas has garnered attention not only for its implications for the state Supreme Court but also for the historical significance of the outcome. This year’s election features Justices Karen Baker and Rhonda Wood contending to succeed outgoing Chief Justice Dan Kemp. While the court is officially nonpartisan, the Republican-backed justices currently hold a 4-3 majority, which is anticipated to expand to a 5-2 dominance regardless of the election’s outcome, due to upcoming appointments by Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Notably, this election will mark a milestone, as the victorious candidate will become the first woman elected to serve as chief justice in Arkansas’s history, following Betty Dickey’s appointment to the role in 2003.
The candidates, Baker and Wood, have distinct backgrounds and political endorsements shaping their campaigns. Wood has served on the court since her initial election in 2014 and boasts a notable endorsement from Governor Sanders, along with support from U.S. Senator Tom Cotton and the Republican Party of Arkansas. Despite this backing, Wood emphasizes her independent stance, asserting that her judicial decisions have consistently reflected adherence to the law rather than partisan allegiance. On the other side, Baker, who has been a court member since 2011, argues her record points to a nonpartisan approach, contrasting Wood’s ties to party politics as evidenced by Sanders’s support for Wood’s candidacy.
Historically, Arkansas Supreme Court races have attracted significant financial backing from conservative groups seeking to influence judicial outcomes. However, these groups are notably absent in this election cycle, choosing instead to concentrate efforts on high-profile races in battleground states such as Ohio and Michigan. This lack of heavy spending suggests a less contentious atmosphere compared to past elections, although the stakes remain high for both candidates aiming to secure a leadership position in a court system that is viewed as crucial to the state’s legal landscape.
The candidates’ judicial philosophies are illustrated through their differing opinions on recent legal issues, including an abortion rights case that sought to amend a state ban following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Wood authored the court’s majority opinion, which upheld the rejection of proposals aimed at scaling back the ban, citing technical noncompliance by the petition sponsors. Baker’s dissent raised concerns about the denial of the public’s opportunity to vote on significant issues, highlighting a deeper ideological divide between the two judges. Wood’s focus on judicial restraint contrasts sharply with Baker’s more emotive response, suggesting voters will have a clear choice based on differing judicial philosophies.
Both candidates have laid out specific aims should they be elected. Wood has articulated a vision for making the court system more accessible and user-friendly, which includes initiatives such as night courts and virtual attendance options to enhance transparency. In contrast, Baker emphasizes her experience and aims to improve the licensure process for attorneys, seeking to build on her established record on the bench. Their contrasting goals reflect broader priorities in the judicial arena, providing voters a chance to weigh the candidates’ visions for the future of Arkansas’s court system.
Regardless of who ultimately prevails in the chief justice race, both candidates will retain their positions on the court, as the election will determine leadership rather than membership. Additionally, the election provides Governor Sanders an opportunity for further influence next year, as she will appoint a new justice to fill an impending vacancy created by Justice Courtney Hudson’s election to a different court position. This ongoing dynamic underscores the significant role of the chief justice in shaping the court’s direction and influence in Arkansas, legitimizing the attention and anticipation surrounding this historical election.
