Some quotes from a story today in the Louisville Courier-Journal:
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.Posted by Marcia Oddi at October 2, 2004 10:23 AMThe Family Foundation of Kentucky, which opposes gay marriage and abortion rights, says the judicial canon infringes on the free-speech rights of citizen groups to survey judges and inform the public.
The suit, filed Sept. 23 in U.S. District Court, says that most of the 28 judicial candidates on the ballot statewide this year who responded to the Family Foundation's survey declined to fill it out, citing fear of violating the rule. * * *
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.In Kentucky, the Family Foundation was unable to persuade a judge or candidate to join the suit as a plaintiff, [foundation director Kent] Ostrander said. But Louisville lawyer Richard Porter, who is running for the circuit bench in Jefferson County, said: "The public has a right to know where judges are coming from. The Kentucky bar tries to scare you into keeping your opinions to yourself."
Authorities on judicial ethics, however, said that if Family Foundation prevails, judges could promise in advance how they would decide cases, destroying the impartiality of the courts. "It would be a disaster for the due process of law," said Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet, co-author of "Judicial Conduct and Ethics: A Treatise on the Law of Judging."
The Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct says judicial candidates shall not make pledges or promises other than to perform their duties impartially, and that they shall not make statements "that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court." Indiana's rule is similar. * * *
The U.S. Supreme Court held in 2002 in a case from Minnesota that judicial candidates have a free-speech right to "announce" their views. But the court didn't address more specific rules in Kentucky, Indiana and most other states that bar judges and challengers from making statements that commit or appear to commit them on issues likely to come before them. * * *
The foundation's survey said it was seeking candidates' "current views on legal issues" rather than any "pledge, promise or commitment.''
The survey asks eight questions, including whether the candidates think the Kentucky Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to enter civil unions or requires the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings if they are displayed with other historically significant documents.
The survey also asked the candidates to name which U.S. Supreme Court justice most closely reflects their judicial philosophy, to rate themselves as "strict constructionists" on a 1-10 scale; and to check off which of 52 organizations they have belonged to or supported in the past 10 years.
The groups range from such liberal groups as the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Greenpeace and Handgun Control to the more conservative Americans United for Life, Focus on the Family and the National Rifle Association.