West Virginia Filmmaker's Festival - October 15, 2005
"Best Film" of Festival (narrative & documentary)

REVIEWS
DVD Outsider Review
Click here: Film Threat - Reviews
Click here: filmcritic.com Movie Review: The Last Campaign

Elect Judges? Sure, As Long As You Don't Mind A Horror Show
by David Yas, Massachusetts Lawyer's Weekly
December 10, 2007

In 2004, people in West Virginia started getting strange phone calls.

A recorded message would explain that it was important they vote against Warren McGraw, a justice of West Virginia's Supreme Court. McGraw, the voice told them, was a dangerous man prone to freeing sexual predators.

The judge, a veteran of politics and the courts, became the victim of an orchestrated campaign by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to extinguish him and his left-leaning voice from the bench. Running for the court against not only a Republican foe but faceless, ruthless forces with huge bankrolls, McGraw lost in the general election to an opponent with a far less impressive record than his.

In the heavy wake of misinformed sludge that followed Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Kathe M. Tuttman's role in the case of a convict who is now alleged to have murdered two people, certain voices are renewing a call to elect judges in this state.

Before we consider such a thing, let's look at what happened in West Virginia in 2004.

Why do I know so much about this election? Because I've seen "The Last Campaign," a captivating documentary film by Wayne Ewing.

Ewing chronicled McGraw's first foray into politics - his successful 1972 run for state Senate - in a film called "If Elected."

The 2004 film uses clips from that original movie to compare the spry, enthusiastic McGraw to the elder version of the man, still shaking hands and asking for votes. The message is clear and painful: Times have changed. Big business is simply very hard to beat these days when it comes to a political campaign.

In fact, the 1972 version of McGraw is chillingly prescient in the film when he notices that a roadside car dealership has endorsed his opponent.

"Corporate participation in the election," he steams. "And by gosh, that is illegal!"

In 2004, McGraw totes around a copy of Forbes Magazine that speaks of "The secret war on judges," a piece that documents the money being spent on attack ads against candidates like McGraw.

Soon enough, we see where the money is being spent.

Television ads begin cropping up with a sinister voice stating: "Our lawsuit-friendly Supreme Court is driving doctors out of business. ÉThe West Virginia Supreme Court: good for lawsuits, bad for your health."

The hits keep on coming. A group calling itself Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse circulates flyers claiming that "Justice McGraw created a law that allows people to sue without evidence." The McGraw camp is flabbergasted, wondering what twisted thread of logic led to that conclusion.

Another TV ad screams: "Letting a sexual predator go free, to work in our schools? That's radical Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw. Too soft on crime. Too dangerous for our kids."

As it turns out, the "predator case" was one in which procedural nuances seemed to suggest that a sex-crime defendant who had already served many years in prison should be turned over to probation. A majority of the court sided with McGraw on the decision.

Watching McGraw try to explain this to reporters and others is disconcerting, as it is painfully obvious that no one is getting it. All they are hearing are the cries of the fear campaign on the other side.

"All you have to do is read the opinion to see it," says McGraw. It's obvious that no one will.

"Tired of lost jobs? Tired of rich, greedy lawyers? Irrational judges? Criminals going free? Then you're tired of Justice Warren McGraw," rails another ad.

The advertisements, of course, feature dark figures and villains lurking in the background, scenes reminiscent of the attack ad Kerry Healey directed at Deval L. Patrick suggesting that Patrick could not be trusted because he had defended an accused rapist as a lawyer.

On election night, the sad inevitability of defeat descends on McGraw and his family.

"The state of West Virginia is for sale," several people say dejectedly.

McGraw's niece says: "You get someone with enough money É just pay to say that the other side is evil É and it works. É It just works."

You have to see this film. If you visit www.thelastcampaign.com, you can order a copy of the DVD.

And the Social Law Library in Boston may hold a screening of the movie sometime in 2008 as part of a series of documentaries.

Robert J. Brink, executive director of the SLL, says the work "raises the perennial issue: Is justice for sale? It highlights the difference between judges and elected officials. É Judges are supposed to be impartial. How can you do that if you have made promises to the electorate?"

For those of you who are frightened by the notion of electing judges, well, this confirms that the horror stories are true.

Judges who are supposed to express their deepest loyalties to the Constitution will instead turn their loyalties to financial supporters and to the whims of the electorate.

And the same hysterical voices calling for "accountability" now, suggesting that judges are appointed through a corrupt process prone to favoritism - well, don't you think those same voices will be questioning every judge's decision that has a hint of favoritism toward a political contributor?

"The Last Campaign" chronicles an earnest man who did his best to shake hands and promise fairness. He lost to a tidal wave of propaganda. It's the worst way to select judges. The film paints a sad story, and if we aren't careful, it could be our story, too.