« Ind. Gov't. - FSSA Secretary Roob vows to rein in Medicaid | Main | Ind. Decisions - Story on yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on economic loss »

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Law - More on running for judge in Kentucky

Last fall we had a number of stories on conservative groups' national attack against limits (generally via court rules) on judicial candidates stating their positions on topics that might come before them on the bench. See this 10/20/04 ILB entry for background.

Today the Louisville Courier Journal reports, in a story headlined "Judicial campaign limits out: Candidates can state positions," that:

In a victory for the conservative Family Foundation of Kentucky, state agencies that regulate lawyers and judges have agreed to drop a rule that barred judicial candidates from pledging their positions on issues likely to come before them in court.

Some experts have warned that allowing candidates to promise in advance how they would decide cases would destroy the impartiality of the courts.

But the Lexington-based Family Foundation, which sued to throw out the rule, said it violated the First Amendment and kept candidates from responding to a questionnaire about such controversial issues as same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves issued a preliminary injunction in October barring the Kentucky Bar Association and Judicial Conduct Commission from enforcing the speech restrictions, and on Monday a settlement was struck in which the two agencies agreed to drop the rule, lawyers for both sides said. * * *

James Bopp, an attorney for the Family Foundation who is challenging similar rules in three other states, including Indiana, said the demise of Kentucky's rule is "a victory for the people, who will have more information when they vote for candidates for judicial office."

The portion of the Code of Judicial Conduct that was dropped said "a judge or candidate for election to judicial office shall not make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office."

It also said candidates "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." * * *

Lawyers say the court is likely to adopt a narrower rule proposed by the American Bar Association that would bar judges from making pledges or promises "inconsistent with the impartial performance" of their duties on matters likely to come before them.

But Bopp, a Terre Haute, Ind., attorney who has won cases striking down judicial speech rules in Minnesota and Alabama, said he doesn't think that language would be constitutional either and he likely would challenge it. * * *

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.

The 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision referenced is Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, Chairperson, Minn. Bd. of Judicial Standards.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 3, 2005 09:44 AM
Posted to General Law Related | Indiana Courts