« Law - The evolution of indictments from bare bones filings to story-telling narratives | Main | Law - End to election law standoff in Kentucky: Stephenson resigns »

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Courts - Running for Judge in Illinois: Judicial hopefuls balk at questionnaire

"Judicial hopefuls balk at questionnaire" is the headline to a story today in the Chicago Sun-Times, that indicates a twist on a theme. Some quotes:

It's common for U.S. Supreme Court nominees to face questions about hot-button topics such as abortion, but a local liberal group is now causing a stir by asking dozens of Cook County judicial candidates about that and other issues.

"Without appearing to commit yourself with respect to cases, please 'announce' your position concerning the right of a woman to have an abortion," a questionnaire from the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization asks Democratic and Republican hopefuls for judge in the March primary. * * *

The current questionnaire quotes from a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that allows candidates for judge to "announce" their positions on hot-button topics. Some candidates, however, feel Illinois' Code of Judicial Conduct holds candidates to a higher standard than the U.S. Supreme Court case. * * *

Judges may opt not to answer the questions, but the survey warns candidates who take that route "may adversely impact your endorsement application."

The twist is that this questionaire comes from "a local liberal group." The Supreme Court case referenced is Republican Party of Minnesota v. White.

For background, see this ILB entry from 3/23/05 ("Running for judge in North Dakota"), which includes this quote from a press release bfrom James Bopp, Jr, Terre Haute attorney:

A North Dakota federal court held yesterday that two canons based on the American Bar Association’s 1990 Model Code of Judicial Conduct were unconstitutional. The court held that provisions of North Dakota’s Code that forbid judicial candidates from making “pledges or promises” of conduct in office or to “commit or appear to commit” candidates to decide a case violate the First Amendment because they forbid judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. * * *

According to James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the North Dakota rules “contradict the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, which clearly stated that judicial candidates have a right to respond to surveys like this and that voters have a right to hear what they have to say.” Bopp, who argued the case challenging the Minnesota judicial rule struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), stated that North Dakota’s rules and policy were being interpreted to “cover the same unconstitutional ground” as Minnesota’s rule that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their views had done.

However, this ILB entry from Nov. 27th ("Running for judge in Pennsylvania") reports that a similar challenge to the Pensylvania Canons of Judicial Conduct was rejected on standing and ripeness grounds. The entry also notes that a similar challenge to the Indiana Canons, Right to Life v. Shepard, is still pending.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 4, 2006 10:03 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts