« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals posts two today | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Public records issues in Lake County »

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Law - Running for judge in North Dakota

A press release just received from James Bopp, Jr, Terre Haute, reports "North Dakota Judicial Conduct Rules Held Unconstitutional." Some quotes:

A North Dakota federal court held yesterday that two canons based on the American Bar Association’s 1990 Model Code of Judicial Conduct were unconstitutional. The court held that provisions of North Dakota’s Code that forbid judicial candidates from making “pledges or promises” of conduct in office or to “commit or appear to commit” candidates to decide a case violate the First Amendment because they forbid judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. * * *

According to James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the North Dakota rules “contradict the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, which clearly stated that judicial candidates have a right to respond to surveys like this and that voters have a right to hear what they have to say.” Bopp, who argued the case challenging the Minnesota judicial rule struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), stated that North Dakota’s rules and policy were being interpreted to “cover the same unconstitutional ground” as Minnesota’s rule that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their views had done.

“The North Dakota decision underscores the broad scope of the White decision,” said Bopp. “It doesn’t just apply to rules that specifically forbid judicial candidates from announcing their views, but to any rule that forbids judicial candidates from expressing their opinions.”

The district court agreed, stating that the “First Amendment guarantees voters the right to obtain the information they desire, and to decide what information may be relevant in determining whom to elect to the bench.” According to the court, “because North Dakota has chosen to select its judges by popular election, the State may not impermissibly restrict the constitutionally-protected speech of judicial candidates.” The court did, however, uphold provisions of North Dakota’s law requiring judges to recuse themselves from proceedings in which the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”

See earlier related ILB entries, titled variously "Running for Judge in .. (Kentucky/Indiana/Illinois)" from 2/3/05, 10/23/04, 10/20/04, 10/6/04, and 10/2/04.

A similar suit has been filed by Bopp in Indiana on behalf of Indiana Right to Life in federal court in Lafayette.

Here is a copy of the North Dakota opinion.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 23, 2005 02:11 PM
Posted to General Law Related | Indiana Courts