Originially from: World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR)

Arbitration: A License to Steal
By Stephen J. Ware
The signs on trees along the highways of Alabama say
“Arbitration: A License to Steal.” This accusation also appears on bumper
stickers and even on coozies (those foam things that keep a drink cold).
The “license to steal” signs first appeared throughout Alabama in
the months prior to the November 2000 elections. The Alabama State
Supreme Court is elected in partisan races and five of the court’s nine
seats were up for election in 2000. The anti-arbitration signs were posted
by the Alabama Democratic Party or its allies. This become clear in the
final days of the campaign when new “license to steal” signs appeared
containing additional text urging voters to “Vote Democrat.”
Partisan Political Issue
In Alabama, arbitration has earned the status of being a partisan
political issue. In Alabama’s 2000 judicial elections, it was a very highprofile
issue. Democrats and their allies, especially plaintiffs’ trial
lawyers, picked arbitration as the issue upon which to run. This strategy
was backed by enough money to air television commercials demonizing
arbitration. The TV ads said that in Alabama victims of Firestone tires
and Ford Explorers “don’t even have the right to confront Ford or
Firestone in court…because a Republican [State] Supreme Court has ruled
that binding arbitration is the only option.”
How arbitration became a high-profile political issue in Alabama is
a fascinating story of the law’s connections to politics and culture.
History
Like other southern states, Alabama was overwhelmingly
Democrat for roughly a century between the 1860s and the 1960s. While
Republicans have gained throughout the south since the 1960s, these gains
came later in Alabama than in neighboring states. Finally, by the late
1980s, Republicans had won statewide races for Governor and Senator,
but still had not cracked the Democrats’ nine-to-zero hold on the Alabama
State Supreme Court.