Shawn Womack
Non-Partisan | Arkansas
Candidate Profile
Uncontested
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Shawn Womack
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2024
Election
Primary
Race
Supreme Court, Associate Justice - Position 5
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (2)
Best Arkansas Conservatives PAC (2016)
State Republican Party Organizations (2015)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Shawn A. Womack is running for the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Position 5.
Background:
- Shawn is married to wife, Melinda, and has two children.
- According to a Facebook post from April 12, 2020 Justice Womack is a Christian.
- Post states: "He is risen! Happy Easter."
- Justice Shawn A. Womack, serves as an Associate Justice and was elected to the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2016.
- In 2015 he served as a Special Justice for the Arkansas Supreme Court and
- From 2009-2016 he served as a Circuit Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit.
- He served as a Arkansas State Senator and was a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives.
- Received his J.D. from University of Arkansas School of Law.
- Is a member of the Federalist Society.
Public Statements:
- Facebook post from July 4, 2023 Womack wrote,
- “As we reflect today on our Declaration of Independence and the events of 1776, it is also instructive to also look at what transpired in the next decade leading to the adoption of our United States Constitution. This clip of Justice Scalia is exactly on point. He explains that the real safeguard of our liberties, and the genius of our founders, is found in the structure of our divided government with its separation of powers and checks and balances. Government was designed to be limited and the implementing of additional governance was designed to be hard. Happy Independence Day!”
Notable Cases:
- Macklin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services (2021): Signed Webb's majority opinion. Held that the circuit court improperly dismissed a mother's (whose daughter "M.S." had been found dependent-neglected and removed from her custody) petition to prevent her daughter from being vaccinated over her religious or philosophical objection (1). The circuit court which adjudicated M.S. dependent-neglected held, "This Court maintains its refusal to make a ruling prohibiting DHS from immunizing this child. As DHS is the legal custodian of the juvenile, the Department can make medicaldecisions that are in the best interest of the child" (3). Held that the case was ripe despite DHS communicating to Macklin that it did not plan to vaccinate M.S. as long as she was in foster care because that communication was not part of the circuit court's record and therefore could not be considered on appeal (5). Held that, instead, the record showed that DHS planned to immunize M.S. if her medical evaluation recommended it (6). Held that, while the General Assembly passed Ark. Code Ann. § 6-918-702 requiring vaccination for admittance to licensed day care centers, public or private schools, "in enacting this wide-reaching immunization mandate, the General Assembly has also provided for exemptions from immunization if 'the parents or legalguardian of that child object thereto on the grounds that immunization conflicts with thereligious or philosophical beliefs of the parent or guardian.' Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-702(d)(4)(A). Accordingly, our legislature has recognized that the State’s interest in promoting the health and safety of its children must yield to the rights of parents to make fundamental decisions in the lives of their offspring. In the case before us, Macklin exercised her right to exempt M.S. from immunization, as was her right as a parent. It is the role of the General Assembly, not the courts, to establish public policy...We therefore reverse and remand..." (9).
- In re Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic/Vaccine Eligibility (2021): Signed the unanimous order that the governor immediately make the COVID vaccine available to Arkansas judges, lawyers, and juries (1-2).
- In re Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (2021): Wrote dissent. Argued that the court lacked authority to effectively change Arkansas's eviction laws (1).
- In re Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (2021): Signed Woods's dissent. Argued that the court should not change its rules for dismissing lawsuits because the rule change was unnecessary, harmful, and did not follow the normal procedure for rule changes (2-3).
- Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co. (2020): Wrote majority opinion. Held that certain parent companies were protected from liability concerning the death of an employee of their child company (1-2).
- Miller v. Thurston (2020): Signed Wynne's majority opinion. Held that the Secretary of State correctly rejected two ballot petitions because their certification language failed to comply with the law's requirements (2).
- Smith v. State (2020) Joined Wood's dissent. Stating "[t]he majority holding that, within this narrow homicide statutory scheme, an 'unborn child' is a person in one context and not a person in another is an artificial distinction. I believe this strained application of statutory construction is in error, and for this reason, I dissent." "Here, the State could have charged Smith with the capital murders of both Cherrish Allbright and her 'unborn child.' Yet, according to the majority, when the State chose to charge Smith with only the capital murder of Allbright, it could not submit the death of her 'unborn child' as an aggravating factor––because the 'unborn child' was no longer a person. Incongruently, the majority would find that Smith could kill Allbright and cause the death of an additional person, her 'unborn child,' and receive capital murder sentences for both, yet the death of her 'unborn child,' could not be used as an aggravating factor for the sentence. This interpretation violates the whole-text canon. Section 5-10-101, relating to capital murder, and section 5-4-604, relating to the aggravating factors for capital murder, are related legislative acts involving the same subject, and we must interpret them in harmony so that absurd results are not yielded." (7)
- Torres v. State (2019): Wrote dissent. Argued that the majority's ruling was based on a misunderstanding of Arkansas' extraterritorial jurisdiction statute (17). The majority's mistake was in assuming that Torres' charge was rape, when in reality the charge was capital felony murder predicated on rape (21). Of course, the underlying rape was still required to be proved to sustain a felony murder conviction under Flowers v. State (2000) (21). Argued that Arkansas had jurisdiction under the statute because the result (death) occured within the State of Arkansas (21).
- Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville (2017): Joined Justice Hart's majority opinion. Involved key issues. Held that state law preempted a local law against SOGI discrimination (1-2).
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
Did not answer
I support a right to accelerate ending a human life.
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States.
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your view of parental rights regarding the upbringing of children, specifically education and sexual "identity"?
Did not answer
I support "gender identity" as a specially protected class. Please explain.
Did not answer
What do you believe to be true about the human condition?
Did not answer
EQUALITY
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
What, if any, church or organizations do you belong to?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else? Please explain.
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
Is there a separation of church and state in the Constitution? Please explain.
Did not answer
Should courts address threats to religious liberty in the United States? If so, how?
Did not answer
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
Did not answer
Was Bostock v. Clayton County rightly decided under the law? Please explain.
Did not answer
I agree that “the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000); quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
Did not answer
What should a judge do when legislative texts and court precedents dictate different results?
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
When, if ever, should a judge take popular opinion or the social views of the majority into consideration?
Did not answer
Do you believe the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, absent changes through the amendment process of Article V?
Did not answer
What do you believe is the single most important quality a judge should possess?
Did not answer
If you are an incumbent judge, describe a recent instance in which you acted to preserve your judicial independence. If you are an aspiring judge, how do you plan to remain independent if elected to the bench?
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
The right to bear arms is fundamental and must be protected.
Did not answer
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Did not answer
How should the court address public health and individual freedoms in the time of a public health emergency?
Did not answer
