Court Issued Stalking Injunction Against Rudolph Drake
A Florida judge placed protective restrictions on the current Alabama State Senate candidate in May 2022.
Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Elections
On May 24, 2022, a Duval County judge issued a final stalking injunction against Rudolph Drake, the current Democratic nominee for Alabama State Senate District 2. The court determined that Runettia Ulanda Guess was the victim of stalking by Drake.
Why it matters
The disclosure of the 2022 protective order brings renewed attention to the background of a candidate currently seeking office in the Alabama State Senate. Alabama Democratic Party leadership has not provided comment regarding the injunction during his candidacy.
The court ordered Drake to maintain 500 feet of distance from the victim's home, workplace, and school, and 100 feet from her vehicle. These restrictions remained in legal effect until their expiration on May 24, 2023.
The players
Rudolph Drake
He is the Democratic nominee for the Alabama State Senate District 2.
Runettia Ulanda Guess
She was identified by the court as the victim of stalking by Rudolph Drake.
Alabama Democratic Party
This political organization manages the party's platform and candidates within the state of Alabama.
The details
Runettia Ulanda Guess filed two sworn petitions in November 2021 and May 2022, describing instances of stalking that reportedly included unwanted 1 a.m. phone calls and being followed in South Carolina. The final judicial order mandated that no contact occur between the two parties, except through a court-approved third party.
Timeline
November 2021: Victim filed the first sworn petition detailing stalking allegations.
May 24, 2022: A judge entered the final stalking injunction against Rudolph Drake.
May 24, 2023: The stalking injunction reached its expiration date.
September 24, 2026: Party leaders received requests for comment regarding the injunction.
November 2026: The upcoming Alabama general election is scheduled to take place.
Political Context
Opponents of the candidate may emphasize that failure to address past judicial findings creates a transparency issue for voters. Dissenting voices argue that candidate vetting processes should account for historical protective orders issued against nominees.
This record serves as a factor for voters to consider regarding the candidate's fitness for public office in the upcoming general election. The existence of a past court-mandated distance restriction may influence how constituents weigh their support for the nominee.
The takeaway
Voters are encouraged to review public records to better understand the background of candidates seeking representation in the state legislature. Evaluating a candidate's past judicial history is a fundamental component of the democratic vetting process.
Further reading
For more information on the current ballot, visit the Alabama Elections portal.
