« Ind. Decisions - Former East Chicago city worker loses federal suit against Mayor Pabey re political firing | Main | Environment - "Indiana's outdoors vanishing quickly" »

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Ind. Courts - More on: Indiana Supreme Court loses case on allowing judicial candidates to express views

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an editorial today supporting federal Judge Allen Sharp's ruling in Indiana Right to Life v. Shepard, which granted a permanent injunction against provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct that prohibited state court judicial candidates from responding to a questionnaire asking their views on legal and political issues. (For background, see this ILB entry from 11/14/06.)

The editorial, titled "Removing muzzle from campaigns," reads:

A federal judge has rightly removed the muzzle that unconstitutionally restricted the free speech rights of judicial candidates campaigning for office.

The ruling by the judge, Allen Sharp of U.S. District Court, has potential to help voters become better informed about their choices when they cast ballots for judges.

But the ruling also increases the importance for candidates to be responsible in their comments and for voters to be wary of candidates pandering for “tough on crime” votes.

Sharp in November struck down Indiana ethical canons that forbid a judicial candidate from making “pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office” and “statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.”

Those rules effectively prohibited candidates from saying much of anything during their campaigns about their approach to justice other than to promise to be impartial. The limits make it difficult for voters to choose between judicial candidates on any basis other than name recognition.

Sharp’s ruling follows the intent of a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that threw out similar guidelines in Minnesota prohibiting candidates from stating their views on disputed political and judicial issues. The Indiana Supreme Court changed some rules in light of that decision, but Sharp determined the state court did not go far enough.

Regrettably, the defendants – including Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard and other members of the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications – are appealing the ruling. The federal judge’s decision supporting free speech rights best serves the public and should prevail.

Sharp’s ruling also implies consequences for candidates who go too far in their pre-election pronouncements. He upheld the ethical guideline stating “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” So judicial candidates still must be cautious to avoid statements that show a bias toward a particular side or face the need to recuse themselves from later cases.

The ruling came in a case filed by Indiana Right to Life, which sent questionnaires to judicial candidates asking their views on abortion and assisted suicide, among other issues. Some candidates told the organization they felt constrained by the ethical rules from answering the questions.

Significantly, Sharp also emphasized that while his ruling allows candidates to respond to such questions, it in no way requires or even encourages responses.

The ruling rightly applies free speech rights to judicial candidates and gives them more discretion in the promises and criticisms they use in campaigning. Voters may become better informed – while they make their own judgments on how candidates use that discretion.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 7, 2007 07:17 PM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions | Indiana Courts