The Curious Case of Rhonda Wood

Dec 4, 2024

f4769e76-b264-405b-a726-21d7ad6424be_398x585.jpeg
Share this news article

Arkansas is widely viewed as a deep red State, even it is really purplish.

Still, how then, do we explain the losses of Rhonda Wood? Justice Wood, practically a career jurist, lost the regular election to soon-to-be Chief Justice Karen Baker and then turned around and lost the runoff to Baker a second time.

Karen Baker is widely considered to be a liberal justice. She was against gun rights in the Steinbuch case. She was for abortion on the ballot. She was against the casino ballot measure. And, she has been notably squishy toward the conservative causes brought before her court as well as the conservative lawyers who bring them.

In contrast, Rhonda Wood is known for showing up at conservative events. She has voted in the right ways to advance the conservative agenda. She has seemed available and responsive to conservative lawyers who advance the cause. As a reward for her actions, and to make the party’s preference known, the Republican Party of Arkansas endorsed Wood for the Chief Justice position.

Yet, Rhonda Wood lost by what is considered a wide margin. The race wasn’t even close. This deserves further analysis. Start with the fact that Barbara Webb, who is viewed as being more conservative than Rhonda Wood, lost to Wood in the regular election. Perhaps this was a litmus test whose warning we missed.

It appears that the voters do not want to be told who the conservative candidate is but want to hear it themselves. Voters are disillusioned by candidates that say nothing about their positions on issues, then vote a certain way, and blame the disillusionment on the person who espoused the elected jurist’s position. It was not that the voters did not believe that Wood was a Republican minded judge, it was that they wanted to hear it themselves.

To this end, Baker said nothing, but said it all. The vote for Baker was not so much a referendum on Wood’s policies, but more of a referendum on candidates who let others speak for them. By saying nothing, Baker let the chips fall where they did. By allowing others to say things for her, Wood made clear that she had no gumption to stand on her own principles.

As we turn to a party that wants to kick people out for twenty years and give “not recommended” status in elections, what has meant to be an affront may become the RPA’s ultimate endorsement.

Thanks for reading Arkansas 1st! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.


Share this news article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top