
Due to the unique relevance to lawyers, judges, and the current campaign season, I have posted substantial portions of this story by Andrew Wolfson.
One comment on the story posted on-line basically sees the writing on the wall if the changes continue in the current direction; eg., "So much for justice being blind. "For Sale" signs out in judiciary
campaigns - Can't wait for that one." One can't argue much with the portent of things to come with this decision and the decision last year by SCOTUS which opened the corporate coffers for campaign contributions.
Here is another development in the continuing changes in judicial
elections with a further partisan politicization of the process. Soon
we will be seeing party endorsements, if not slates, of candidates.
The above image is from the book by C. harles Ashman, "The Finest Judges Money Can Buy and Other Forms of Judicial Polution". Click on this link to obtain the book from Amazon.com.
For the full text of Marcus Carey v. Stephen Wolnitzek, click here.
And for some commentary from Marcus Carey's blog at BlueGrassBulletin.com:
I am thrilled to announce that the United States District Court
for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the decision in my case wherein I
challenged the Canons of Judicial Ethics in 2006 as violating the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Here are a few highlights from today's decision, Carey
vs. Wolnitzek:
From the Courier Journal:
Kentucky
judicial hopefuls get right to solicit funds, reveal party
Judicial candidates in Kentucky have a First Amendment right to
announce their political party affiliation and to directly solicit
campaign contributions, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
"Elections are
elections, and the same First Amendment applies to all of them," a 6th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said.
The panel also questioned another rule that bars
judicial candidates from pledging to rule a certain way on issues likely
to come before them, but sent that back to a federal judge for
additional consideration.
Marcus
Carey, a former Republican Party leader from Northern Kentucky who lost
a Kentucky Supreme Court race in 2006 and challenged the rules, said:
"It's a great day for the Constitution."
But two candidates for Jefferson District Court said
that they won't take advantage of either portion of the ruling because
they think the changes will erode confidence in the impartiality of the
courts.
"Just
because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should go out
and do it," Judge Claude Prather said.
He and challenger Sandy McLaughlin, a former
prosecutor, said they will continue to use committees to seek campaign
contributions, rather than soliciting donations themselves.
"I just don't believe
in putting pressure on people to do that," Prather said.
McLaughlin said litigants would be uncomfortable
appearing before somebody who had advertised that he belonged to a
different political party.
District court seats in Kentucky are up for election
this year; circuit judges don't run for re-election until 2014.
Under the ruling,
judicial candidates will still run in nonpartisan elections and their
political party won't be identified on the ballot.
Steve Wolnitzek, chairman of the state Judicial
Conduct Commission, a
defendant in Carey's suit, said it would be up to the state Supreme
Court, which sets judicial election rules, to decide whether to ask the
U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Carey also challenged a portion of a rule that bars
judicial candidates from making statements committing them to rule a
certain way "in a case, controversy, or issue that is likely to come
before the court."