First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
Court halts enforcement of Kan. judicial-speech rules

By The Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. — Rules barring Kansas judicial candidates from personally soliciting contributions and limiting what they can say during campaigns can't be enforced because of questions about the limits' constitutionality, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson is prohibiting the state's Commission on Judicial Qualifications from moving against judges or judicial candidates who violate provisions in Kansas' code of judicial conduct. Her order, issued July 19, is to remain in effect until she considers a lawsuit filed by Kansas Judicial Watch, a political action committee based in Wichita.

The PAC sued the commission after it advised a judicial candidate in April that he could not answer a questionnaire from the group without running afoul of the code.

Among other things, the questionnaire asked whether a candidate thought the Kansas Supreme Court had overstepped its authority in ordering legislators to increase spending on public schools, whether same-sex marriages should be prohibited and whether fetuses have a right to life that "should be respected at every stage of their biological development."

Kansas Judicial Watch argued that the code contained provisions that violated judicial candidates' free-speech rights and prevented voters from obtaining information about them.

Robinson's order covered two provisions. One prohibits candidates from making pledges on how they'll conduct themselves if elected or committing themselves to positions on cases or even general issues likely to come before the court. The second says a judicial candidate must have a committee solicit campaign contributions or even "publicly stated support."

"The state's effort to limit the inherent effects of elections on the public's confidence in judicial impartiality chills protected political speech," Robinson wrote in her 48-page order.

Kansas Judicial Watch submitted its questionnaire to judicial candidates in Sedgwick County and to nine state Court of Appeals judges, who are appointed but stand for retention on the bench every four years.

James Bopp Jr., a Terre Haute, Ind., attorney representing Kansas Judicial Watch, had predicted the provisions in the Kansas code would not withstand scrutiny because of the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White — which Robinson cited.

"The free-speech rights of judicial candidates and citizens in Kansas have been vindicated," Bopp said.

Ron Keefover, a spokesman for Kansas' court system, said attorneys were reviewing the ruling and deciding whether to appeal it to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit were the commission's 14 members; its examiner, who prosecutes complaints against judges; the state's disciplinary administrator for attorneys and four staff members.

"In terms of the immediate impact, there are no complaints pending against a judge or judge candidate for violating any of those provisions," Keefover said.

State Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges are appointed by the governor and stand for retention. The same is true for 125 district judges in 52 of the state's 105 counties.

But 115 district judges in 53 counties are elected.

"Because the state has voluntarily allowed for this method of judicial selection, the candidates should be allowed to educate the voters about themselves without fear of discipline," Robinson wrote in her order.


Alaska limits on judicial candidates' speech ruled unconstitutional

Federal judge says rule barring judges who are candidates for reelection from stating opinions on controversial issues violates First Amendment. 08.19.05

N.D. high court adopts new judicial-campaign rules
Revised regulations come after federal judge rules previous limits on candidates' speech were unconstitutional. 01.10.06

Supreme Court won't hear judicial-speech case
Refusal leaves in place 8th Circuit ruling barring Minnesota's regulations on partisan activities by judges because they restrict free speech. 01.23.06

Ky. judicial candidates can't say how they would rule
Federal judge finds they can tell voters their political affiliation and solicit contributions from attorneys who may argue cases before them. 10.11.06

Federal court asked to toss Wis. judicial-campaign rules
Lawsuit says regulations limiting judicial candidates' comments violate free speech, deprive citizens of information they need to cast informed votes. 01.03.07

Judicial campaign speech

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print

Last system update: Friday, July 25, 2008 | 05:00:45
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links