AshLeigh Meyer Dunham
Democrat | Alabama
Candidate Profile
Proven Activist
BIOGRAPHY
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
ENDORSEMENTS
LIBERAL (4)
Alabama AFL-CIO
Alabama New South Alliance
Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC Action Fund
For the Future Victory Fund
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
AshLeigh Meyer Dunham (2025)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (4)
Marilyn Lands (2026)
Persistence PAC (2026)
Alabama Works PAC (2025)
AshLeigh Meyer Dunham (2025)
OTHER INFORMATION
Dunham appeared at Birmingham Pride Weekend alongside other Democratic candidates, indicating participation in and support for LGBTQ-related events.
Dunham criticized the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Alabama’s IVF ruling, arguing that courts should not restrict abortion access or reproductive healthcare decisions.
Dunham criticized former Chief Justice Roy Moore’s resistance to implementing Obergefell v. Hodges, arguing that government should not impose one religious belief on others. She emphasized that the Constitution protects both religious freedom and equal protection, stating that judges must allow individuals to “live differently” while ensuring equal legal protections.
Dunham stated that she wants to bring “balance” to the Alabama Supreme Court, criticizing what she described as an “echo chamber” and the “rubber stamping of political agendas.” She identified the Alabama Supreme Court’s IVF decision as her primary example, arguing that the court’s reasoning reflected a specific political ideology by concluding that embryos should receive legal protections as persons. Dunham argued that judges should focus on protecting constitutional rights and consider the real-world impact of their decisions, stating that courts should balance “human empathy and the law” rather than advance political agendas.
Dunham praised Justice Cook’s judicial approach, stating that she often agreed with his opinions because he “carefully worked through the statute, the Constitution, and the precedent” and provided reasoning even when he was in the minority. She compared their judicial philosophies to Justice Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, stating that “disagreement, when rooted in their respect for the law, strengthens the judiciary.” Dunham emphasized that “who sits on the court matters,” because “how they interpret the law matters” and “the judicial philosophy they bring to the bench matters.”
Dunham expressed support for revising the state Constitution, arguing that it is overly lengthy and should be restructured to better reflect the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. She stated that “there's a lot of stuff that needs to be scrapped and redone” and that she believes the state Constitution should be reframed to reflect the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In discussing the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship, Dunham emphasized a textualist approach, stating that “Congress didn't write, ‘formally enslaved people are citizens.’ Instead, they deliberately chose broader language: ‘All persons born in the United States.’ That choice matters.” She argued that constitutional protections should not be limited based on the specific historical circumstances that led to their adoption, stating, “If we start rewriting constitutional texts based on what we think someone intended instead of what they actually wrote, then every constitutional protection becomes negotiable.”
Dunham expressed a view that judges should follow the Constitution as written rather than change its meaning based on policy preferences, stating, “Those words aren't vague. They're not hidden between the lines. They're not open to rewriting because the political winds have changed.” She added that disagreements with constitutional provisions should be resolved through the amendment process, stating, “Whether you agree with birthright citizenship as a policy is a question for the Amendment process, not for ignoring words that are already in the Constitution.”
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Did not answer
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Did not answer
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Did not answer
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Did not answer
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
Did not answer
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
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
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
Did not answer
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
Did not answer
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
Did not answer
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Did not answer
What is the proper role of a judge?
Did not answer
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
Did not answer
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Did not answer
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
The burden of proof in a criminal case is generally that the state must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Some say the reason the burden of proof is so high is because we greatly value ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly imprisoned. Please comment on this topic.
Did not answer
When reviewing wrongful conviction claims, what role, if any, should judges play in determining remedies?
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
Did not answer
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Did not answer
