« Courts - Still more on: Illinois chief justice doesn't just get mad, he sues | Main | Courts - Even more on: Illinois chief justice doesn't just get mad, he sues »

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

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

This is a biggie. Here are some quotes from a press release just issued by James Bopp, who was the lead counsel in a suit against the Indiana Chief Justice in the case of Indiana Right to Life v. Shepard.

Indiana Judicial Conduct Rules Enjoined

Federal District Court Judge Allen Sharp has 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. The Court held that provisions of Indiana’s Code 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 violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because these provisions prohibited candidates from simply announcing their views on issues.

Indiana Right to Life had sent a questionnaire to candidates for judicial office in the November 2004 election requesting that they state their views on policies and court decisions related to such matters as assisted-suicide and abortion. Several of the judicial candidates refused to do so, stating that advice from the Indiana Judicial Commission on Qualifications suggested that judicial candidates could be disciplined for expressing their views by responding the questions posed in such questionnaires. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from “announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues.” The District Court found the Indiana “pledge or promise” and “commit” provisions unconstitutional because they were used to forbid the same speech that the Minnesota “announce” clause had prohibited.

According to James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the Indiana rules “contradict the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, which clearly stated that judicial candidates have a right to respond to questionnaires 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 Indiana’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.

The case is Indiana Right to Life v. Shepard, No. 4:04-cv-0071 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 14, 2006).
For background start with this ILB entry from July 12th, 2006.

The decision ends with this:

Finally, it is worth restating that nothing in this Court’s order should be read to compel, or even encourage, judges or judicial candidates to answer questions put to them by these plaintiffs or any other group. This Court comes to its decision without regard to the political or social agendas of the Plaintiffs in this matter. While this Court appreciates both the difficulty and the importance of the task charged to the Defendants in this case, it also appreciates a very basic reality – that judges come to the bench with a diverse range of well-formed opinions and predispositions on a host of social and political issues. And yet the overwhelming majority of them fairly and competently discharge their judicial duties. In the rare event that they do not, the democratic process – not ad hoc analysis by a state commission – provides the proper remedy.
Here is the 21-page opinion of the federal district court in Right to Life v. Shepard.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 14, 2006 04:51 PM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions | Indiana Courts