Getting Your Supreme Attention - Judicial Elections to be Monitored in 2006

It has been reported in the Courier Journal, that Chief Justice Lambert appointed a task force citizens group on July 7, 2005 to monitor next year's judicial elections.  More than 200 races will be watched with an "eye" for encouraging ethical campaigns by candidates.

Lambert hopes the panel of citizens will have "a considerable moral suasion and restraint on candidates who might be inclined to let campaigns go into the mud."

Tony Wilhoit of Versailles, Kentucky (executive director of the State Legislative Ethics Commission and former Chief Judge of the Kentucky Court of Appeals) has been asked to head the group to be called teh Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee.

Source: Courier-Journal, Metro Section, July 9, 2005.

Commentary:

"Say it ain't so, Joe." - unknown little boy allegedly outside of the courtroom to Shoeless Joe Jackson of the Chicago White Sox during the 'Black Sox' Scandal.

Sometimes I would hope that we would look upward for what we can achieve rather than look down upon our candidates with concerns of our worst fears. 

This Committee apparently has been established in response to REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE (01-521) 536 U.S. 765 (2002) and the Kentucky Federal District Case in October 2004, in which U.S. District Court Judge Danny Reeves ruled the state Judicial Conduct Commission and Kentucky Bar Association cannot punish a candidate for making statements that appear to commit that candidate to a certain stance or issue.   Judicial candidates should be allowed to express opinions in campaign speeches without fear of being punished by Kentucky's restrictions on campaign speech, a judge ruled. "Kentucky's canon of judicial conduct that professes to prohibit candidates from making promises, pledges or commitments, in fact limits the candidate's ability to announce his or her views in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. . . ." Reeves.  See,  First Amendement Center Blog

FYI the KBA Judicial Ethics Opinion (JE-106) on campaign speech by judges which ironically concluded the Minnesota Case did not apply to Kentucky can be found by clicking on the the preceding reference/link.

Now the questions this raises are:

1. What is the authority and/or propriety of the Chief Justice and/or the Supreme Court and/or the AOC in establishing a political committee to oversee judicial elections?  Or is it even a regulated committee?
2. Will the Committee monitor the campaigns in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court?
3. If they find a violation or questionable activity, then what are they to do?  A.  Nothing till after the election.  B.  Report it (and to whom?).   C.  Investigate it?   D.  Recommend remedial measures?  E. All of the above.

This Committe is troubling on several fronts:

• The committee may possess 'legal authority' in the eyes of the public.
• The committee's actions could end up accomplishing that which it seeks to prevent - interfering with the electoral process by interjecting factors beyond the judge's qualifications for office.  Or to say it another way, an allegation by the committee might then be used by the opposing side in support of their own candidacy.
• What is the source of the Committee's funding?
• Why not let the process work as it is supposed to work?!  Lawyers know the law.  Judges are lawyers.  For example, "EC 8-6 states that lawyers, because of their opportunity for personal observation and investigation, have a 'special responsibility to aid in the selection of only those who are qualified' for judicial office. This responsibility includes endorsements and contributions made be attorneys to campaigns."  KBA Ethics Opinion E-277
• Gives the appearance Big Brother is watching, watching and watching, and if it does not watch the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals elections, then something is honestly remiss.

For some links:

• Judicial Selection Info from AJS
• Kentuck's Judicial Ethics Opinions
• Kentucky Registry of Election Finance
• Kentucky State Board of Elections
  The Deadline for Filing for the May 2006 Primary is JANUARY 31, 2006
• 2006 Election Calendar
• Election Results by Year (Primary/General)
• Election Laws (includes Judicial)
• Election Candidate Qualifications and Filing Fees
• Election Schedule (Offices Up for Election)

A word to the wise - any lawyers considering a "Run for the Robes" (sm)(c) in 2006 should consider the following:

• Start now organizing your committee and group -  it is never too early to be prepared.
  Need a treasurer, a committee, a think tank, and plans for the grips and grins and places and spaces to go.  Signs, flyers, handouts, endorsements, unions, FOP, clubs, nail files, bumper stickers, radio and television media buys . . . . and MONEY.
• Check out the opportunities and the opposition.
  Incumbent judge - elected or appointed?
  Open race with no incumbent?
  Incumbent's electoral history (number of votes and closeness of earlier elections).
  Money spent by incumbent and others.
• Time away from job, family, friends, and work.
• Can you afford it?

Been there, done that, and wish each of you the best.