This story by Pat Crowley in the Enquirer today was a bit disturbing - Judicial contests become partisan.
Pat makes a big deal about political parties endorsing various judicial candidates and including the names of the candidates in party mailers.
Although my own personal opinion is against partisanship dalliance in judicial elections, that is not the law....... today at least.
Hmmmm. Wasn't it Republican Marcus Carey who brought down the partisan walls of Jericho trumpeting the horn of free speech? And of course, this ruling is not final either.
Well the rights of free speech exist for the candidates and the voters and the groups who support the candidates.
The mere fact that a voter or party or particular group may support or endorse a candidate reflects only and soley upon the supporter and not the candidate.
To assume otherwise in the absence of any other facts is inaccurate.
In the absence of the candidate pushing the endorsement, announcing a view, or plastering the policital partisanship in ads, then a party mailer has nothing to do with the candidate. Just as removing a yard sign as litter on the rights of way in the city.
Surely no one expects a candidate to tell a group of voters to back off???!!! Silence is completely appropriate.
Bad judgment on the political party for the mailing is accurate, but claiming bad judgment on the part of the candidate who is mentioned in the mailing is wrong.
Just as a judicial candidate cannot stop me writing letters to my friends and acquaintances to vote for him or his opponent, a judicial candidate can't stop a political party from doing what it does in politics.
And that my friends is why I advocate judicial appointments and not elections.
Here's the story.
Judicial contests become partisan
Around Northern Kentucky
Northern Kentucky politics crossed a line this campaign season.
by Pat Crowley, Cin. Enquirer