« Environment - More on NW Indiana environmental issues | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 3 NFP) »

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Courts - Running for judge in Kentucky

"Candidates for judge can reveal party: U.S. [federal district] court strikes down state rule" is the headline to this story today by Andrew Wolfson in the Louisville Courier Journal. Some quotes:

A federal judge has struck down Kentucky's rule banning judicial candidates from announcing their political party, saying it violates the First Amendment "and does nothing toward assuring the actual open-mindedness of the candidate."

The ruling was sought by a Republican Party activist from Northern Kentucky who is running for the state Supreme Court.

But while the ruling allows candidates of any party to announce their affiliation, the chairman of Kentucky's Judicial Conduct Commission says he expects few candidates for judge -- especially Republicans -- to take advantage of it.

"With the stuff going on in Washington and from what I read from the pundits, this may not be the best time to say you are a Republican," said Steve Wolnitzek, a Covington lawyer who is chairman of the judicial discipline panel.

Marcus Carey, who sought the ruling, said yesterday that he hasn't decided how it might affect his campaign against Court of Appeals Judge Wilfrid Schroder.

But Carey, a former Republican Party chairman in the 4th Congressional District who has touted his "conservative values" in the race, said "the most important thing is that the Constitution was upheld. … This is a great day for freedom of speech."

Schroder, a registered Democrat, said the ruling will have no effect on his campaign.

"I told voters I wouldn't have a political agenda -- that it is wrong to have a political agenda running for a seat on the Supreme Court, and it would be wrong to go back on my word at this point," he said.

The case is Carey v. Wolnitizek (ED Ky) - access it here. More from the story:
In her 37-page order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell also tossed out a judicial rule that has barred candidates from raising money themselves and required them to entrust that job to campaign committees.

The defendants in the suit -- the judicial commission and the Kentucky Bar Association -- contended that the rule kept judges from directly intimidating lawyers into making donations.

But Caldwell noted that it didn't keep judicial candidates from finding out who gave to them and how much. "If … the public believes that elected judges favor their contributors, then the fact that contributions are solicited by a committee instead of the judge himself does nothing to dispel that perception."

Wolnitzek said he didn't know if the defendants would appeal the ruling, in which Caldwell issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the two canons. He said the two agencies first would consult with the state Supreme Court, which makes the rules.

One of Carey's lawyers, James Bopp of Terre Haute, Ind., who last year successfully attacked Kentucky's judicial speech rules on behalf of the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said "judicial candidates have a right to announce their views by stating their political affiliation and to solicit funds for their campaigns for office."

It is not clear how the ruling may affect this year's judicial elections, which are less than four weeks away. Judicial elections will still be nonpartisan, and Caldwell noted that the ruling will require no changes on the ballot. * * *

Caldwell's ruling is one of many nationwide that have struck down restrictions on judicial speech and campaigning as violations of the First Amendment.

As a result of the federal court ruling for the Family Foundation last year, the Kentucky Supreme Court had to drop a rule that barred judicial candidates from making statements that "commit or appear to commit" them to positions on cases they likely would hear.

It was replaced by a new canon that says judicial candidates must not intentionally or recklessly make a statement that could be perceived by a reasonable person as committing them to rule a certain way on an issue they could hear.

Here is a long list of earlier ILB "Running for =Judge" entries.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 12, 2006 10:30 AM
Posted to Courts in general