« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 9 today (and 9 NFP) | Main | Ind. Law - How Hoosiers’ sales tax stacks up »

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Courts - More on: Pennsylvania Rule Prohibiting Judicial Candidates’ Speech Enjoined

This ILB entry from May 14th quoted a press release from attorney James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs in a Pennsylvania suit, stating that: "Federal District Court Judge Marvin Katz has granted a preliminary injunction against provisions of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct that prohibited state court judicial candidates from responding to a questionnaire asking their views on legal and political issues." The ILB noted: "Bopp obtained a similar remedy in Indiana last November; see this Nov. 14, 2006 ILB entry."

This ILB entry from May 23rd begins:

Torsten Ove of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a long article yesterday on the impact of the recent federal district court decision in Pennsylvania enjoining that State's rules that forbid judicial candidates from making “pledges or promises” of conduct in office or statements that “commit or appear to commit” candidates on issues likely to come before them. The article is too long to quote in full but deserves close reading, particularly because a similar federal court decision was issued here in Indiana last November.
Today Peter Jackson of the AP reports:
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Judicial candidates in Pennsylvania are free to discuss the issues of the day on the campaign trail, so long as they do not promise to rule in a particular way once they are elected, a federal judge has ruled.

"Any speech by a judicial candidate, short of a pledge, promise, or commitment to adjudicate a particular result, is speech permitted by the [Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct] and by the First Amendment," Senior Judge Marvin Katz of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia wrote in a decision issued last week.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed in the spring by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which sent questionnaires to more than 100 candidates for state and county judgeships in which the group solicited the candidates' views on issues including abortion, gay marriage and school prayer.

Six Republican candidates running in the May 15 primary joined in the lawsuit, saying they wanted to respond to that survey and to one from another group but were barred by judicial rules.

The plaintiffs said portions of the code, written by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, were so vague that they violated candidates' right to free speech.

Katz, who also lifted a May order that temporarily barred enforcement of rules governing judicial campaign speech, stressed that they were only one factor that a judicial candidate must consider in deciding whether to speak out on controversial topics.

"Many candidates refused to answer those questions, because they feared their answers would force them to recuse themselves from future cases, and more importantly, cast doubt on the impartiality and integrity of Pennsylvania's courts," Katz wrote. He said he "wholeheartedly agreed with these sentiments."

Only 19 candidates responded to the questionnaire, according to court papers.

Oddly, little other than today's AP story has appeared on this 68-page ruling, Penn. Family Institute v. Celluci, issued Oct.16. The ILB has obtained a copy.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 23, 2007 03:28 PM
Posted to Courts in general | Indiana Courts