This is an opinion column.

Alabama’s trial bar is putting their cash on the scales in favor of Associate Justice Sarah Stewart’s bid to lead the Alabama Supreme Court. Plaintiff’s attorneys have historically been in the camp of Democrats, but that’s not a viable political option when all the action is in the Republican primaries. Alabama voters may support a return to “tort hell,” but they should at least know about the trial bar’s keen interest in Stewart’s candidacy.

To be clear, I wrote about this issue in 2022 when the trial bar heavily funded an unsuccessful candidate against Associate Justice Greg Cook. Nothing has changed. It’s literally the same playbook.

This time it’s Bryan Taylor facing off against Associate Justice Sarah Stewart. While Stewart has the advantage of currently serving on the court and a lengthy tenure as a judge, Taylor isn’t new to Alabama politics. He has served as a state senator as well as legal advisor to both Gov. Bob Riley and Gov. Kay Ivey. Taylor also has an inside understanding of politics having served as deputy legal counsel to the Alabama Republican Party.

So why does it matter where the plaintiff’s bar puts their cash?

I’ll spare you the history lesson on Alabama plaintiff’s verdicts, but the Yellowhammer State has a history of wild plaintiff’s verdicts which culminated in the United States Supreme Court’s 1996 intervention in BMW v. Gore.

Ira Gore purchased a new car from an Alabama BMW dealership and discovered that his new vehicle had been repainted. He sued BMW alleging that it committed fraud by failing to inform him that his car had been repainted. The trial court awarded Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the damages were not so excessive as to violate BMW’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court reversed that Alabama Supreme Court and put some basic guardrails around the punitive judgements of the 1990s. Political realities changed as well. Looking to secure more business investment in Alabama, a new wave of conservative elected officials enacted various tort reform measures much to the chagrin of the trial bar.

Alabama’s Supreme Court indeed became dominated by Republicans, but that didn’t necessarily make it more conservative. In Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks (Ala. 2014), for example, the court adopted a theory of “innovator liability” which held that brand-name drug manufacturers could be liable for failure to warn claims brought by plaintiffs who ingested the generic drug. Republicans in the Alabama legislature stepped in shortly after the ruling and blocked the Alabama Supreme Court’s policy making misadventures on the topic.

With Chief Justice Tom Parker stepping down, the direction of the court is again up for grabs. The trial bar isn’t mincing words with their political investments: Stewart is a friend, and Taylor is a threat.

In a race that doesn’t generate a lot of media attention, plaintiffs’ firms have funneled dump truck loads of campaign cash through political action committees like Progress for Justice PAC, Pride PAC II, T-Town PAC II, Alabama Development PAC, BIZPAC, Fair PAC, and First Decade PAC.

Plaintiff’s attorneys fund generically labeled PACs which in turn fund Stewart’s campaign. The sheer scope is staggering. Here’s just one example. On February 20, 2024, Stewart received $304,000 from Progress for Justice PAC. That one donation is more than twice as much as opponent Taylor has raised in the entire race.

Stewart has raised more in total contributions this cycle ($2.3 million) than both Rep. Jerry Carl and Rep. Barry Moore combined ($2.09 million) in the hotly contested race for Alabama’s First Congressional District.

Either Stewart has become the most prolific fundraising Alabama politician nobody has heard about, or the trial bar truly has a vested interest in the outcome of the race.

Many of my law school classmates and friends are prolific trial attorneys in Alabama. There’s nothing wrong with them putting money behind candidates aligned with their professional interests. Voters should know anytime one specific interest group is so heavily funding one candidate in a race where most voters make a decision on campaign rhetoric alone.

Frankly, the business community in Alabama seems asleep at the wheel on this race. In 2022, Cook had a barn burner of a race on his hands, but he had the cash to really compete because businesses rallied around his candidacy. That simply hasn’t been the case for Taylor’s bid for chief justice to this point in the race.

Stewart may well champion a judicial environment consistent with the reformist mindset that dominates Alabama’s legislature, but the plaintiff’s bar hasn’t entered into the fray of Republican politics hoping for a hung jurist. As I’ve said before, Alabama voters must be the ultimate judge.

Smith is a recovering political attorney with four boys, two dogs, a bearded dragon, and an extremely patient wife. He’s a partner in a media company, a business strategy wonk, and a regular on talk radio. Please direct outrage or agreement to [email protected] or @DCameronSmith on X or @davidcameronsmith on Threads.