« Indiana Decisions - Seven posted today by Court of Appeals | Main | Indiana Decisions - More on South Bend Boat Club ruling »

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Law - Still More on Running for Judge

An Oct. 2 Indiana Law Blog entry, titled "Running for judge in Kentucky and Indiana," quoting from a Louisville Courier-Journal article, included this:

A conservative group that wants to solicit judicial candidates' views on same-sex unions and other controversial issues is seeking to throw out a Kentucky rule that bars judges and challengers from committing themselves on topics that may come before them. * * *

Indiana Right to Life filed a similar suit against a state judiciary panel in federal court in Lafayette on Wednesday. The Evansville-based group said it sent questionnaires to judicial candidates asking for their opinions on abortion, euthanasia and other issues.

An Oct. 6th entry quoted from an AP story, including:
A group that wants North Dakota judge candidates to answer questions about abortion, homosexuality and school prayer is suing to block judicial conduct rules that it says prevent the candidates from replying.

The North Dakota Family Alliance filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Fargo, its director, Christine Rondeau, said Monday. The group contends some of North Dakota's judicial conduct rules are unconstitutional because they infringe on the free-speech rights of judges and attorneys who are running for judgeships. * * *

The lawsuit is being handled by a Terre Haute, Indiana, law firm that successfully represented the Minnesota Republican Party two years ago in a U.S. Supreme Court dispute over judicial speech. The high court's ruling in the case, called Republican Party v. White, gave candidates for judicial office more leeway to discuss issues during campaigns.

Today the Associated Press is reporting:
LEXINGTON, Ky. - Judicial candidates should be allowed to express opinions in campaign speeches without fear of being punished by Kentucky's restrictions on campaign speech, a judge ruled.

U.S. District Court Judge Danny Reeves ruled Tuesday that the state Judicial Conduct Commission and Kentucky Bar Association cannot punish a candidate for making statements that appear to commit that candidate to a certain stance or issue.

"Kentucky's canon of judicial conduct that professes to prohibit candidates from making promises, pledges or commitments, in fact limits the candidate's ability to announce his or her views in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution," Reeves wrote. * * *

Family Trust filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in September, saying that state ethics laws violated a judge's right to free speech and violated voters' rights to know how judges stand on certain issues.

Three similar lawsuits were filed in North Dakota, Alaska and Indiana.

The Kentucky lawsuit asked Reeves to declare an emergency injunction before the Nov. 2 election so Family Trust could send its surveys to judicial candidates again without those candidates fearing that they will run afoul of state ethics laws. * * *

[L]awyers for Family Trust argued that the state's "commit" clause was overly broad and vague and violated a 2002 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that said that judges can make some statements on issues.

In his decision, Reeves said just because judges can make statements, doesn't mean they have to or will make statements.

Unfortunately, the Eastern District of Kentucky does not appear to make its opinions available.

The Indiana case, Indiana Right to Life v. Shepard, was filed in the ND Indiana, Lafayette, before Judge Sharp. According to a story in the Indiana Lawyer today, Judge Sharp, on October 14th, denied Right to Life's request for a preliminary injunction, citing time remaining before the November 2nd election. That ruling also does not appear to be available online.

[More] A press release from James Bopp, Jr. (Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute), lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Kentucky suit, headlined "Kentucky Judicial Conduct Rules Enjoined", reports:

Federal District Court Judge Danny C. Reeves has granted a preliminary injunction against provisions of the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct that prohibited state court judicial candidates from responding to a survey asking their views on legal and political issues. Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Partial Injunctive Relief, Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, Inc. v. Wolnitzek, No. 6:04-473-DCR (E.D. Ky., Oct. 19, 2004). The court held that provisions of Kentucky's Code that forbid judicial candidates from making "pledges or promises" of conduct in office or to "commit or appear to commit" candidates to deciding a case in a particular way violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because these provisions prohibited candidates from simply announcing their views on issues. * * *

The district court stayed its order granting a preliminary injunction until Thursday, October 21, 2004, in order to provide the Defendants – the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission. the Kentucky Inquiry Commission, and the Kentucky Bar Counsel – the opportunity to request a stay of the court's order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Today, the Defendants requested such a stay and filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 20, 2004 04:35 PM
Posted to General Law Related