Usually One To Defend Freedom Of Speech, Louisville Courier Journal Now "Cries Us A River" When "Political Judges" Seek Protection.
Political judges
When they passed the landmark Judicial Reform Article in 1975, Kentuckians could look forward to a new era of nonpartisan legal rulings.
And with little bumps here and there, that is exactly what did result. No longer were judgeships the province of partisan hacks whose greatest strengths included ties to political bosses, labor unions and the like. More than a generation of judges worked their way through the system, earning their reputations for hard work, community involvement and nonpartisan behavior.
How long that will continue, however, is in serious doubt, following a ruling this week by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Using the First Amendment as justification, the court said that existing restrictions imposed by the bar and by the law are unconstitutional.
Unless the decision is successfully appealed, judicial candidates would be able to affiliate themselves with political parties, and they could personally solicit funds. How far they can go in expressing their personal views on issues likely to come before their courts has yet to be resolved.
Only seven states currently permit judges to identify themselves by parties. This case was filed by an unsuccessful candidate for the Kentucky Supreme Court who had been an official of the state Republican Party.
And it is yet another instance in which the First Amendment has been contorted to undermine the independence of the judiciary. In 2002, in another case brought by Republicans, this time the state party of Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states couldn't prevent judicial candidates from expressing their personal views in advertising. So far, there's been reluctance by most judges to exploit that opportunity (although some particularly vicious races have been run in other states, notably Texas).
After the Minnesota ruling, then-Chief Justice Joseph Lambert called together a group of leaders in the bar and the media to discuss ways in which to prevent Kentucky's judicial elections from being sullied. From that came a screening committee that observed the campaigns, and a pledge for candidates to sign. It has worked very well.
Perhaps Chief Justice John Minton should convene a similar meeting to address this potential threat to the independence of our elected judiciary in Kentucky. And perhaps it's time to take a harder look at some of the proposals -- notably those of the late Justice William McAnulty -- to replace the elective system with an appointive process.
With certain exceptions, Kentucky's judicial system is working, though. This bad decision must not prevent it from continuing to do so.
When they passed the landmark Judicial Reform Article in 1975, Kentuckians could look forward to a new era of nonpartisan legal rulings.
And with little bumps here and there, that is exactly what did result. No longer were judgeships the province of partisan hacks whose greatest strengths included ties to political bosses, labor unions and the like. More than a generation of judges worked their way through the system, earning their reputations for hard work, community involvement and nonpartisan behavior.
How long that will continue, however, is in serious doubt, following a ruling this week by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Using the First Amendment as justification, the court said that existing restrictions imposed by the bar and by the law are unconstitutional.
Unless the decision is successfully appealed, judicial candidates would be able to affiliate themselves with political parties, and they could personally solicit funds. How far they can go in expressing their personal views on issues likely to come before their courts has yet to be resolved.
Only seven states currently permit judges to identify themselves by parties. This case was filed by an unsuccessful candidate for the Kentucky Supreme Court who had been an official of the state Republican Party.
And it is yet another instance in which the First Amendment has been contorted to undermine the independence of the judiciary. In 2002, in another case brought by Republicans, this time the state party of Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states couldn't prevent judicial candidates from expressing their personal views in advertising. So far, there's been reluctance by most judges to exploit that opportunity (although some particularly vicious races have been run in other states, notably Texas).
After the Minnesota ruling, then-Chief Justice Joseph Lambert called together a group of leaders in the bar and the media to discuss ways in which to prevent Kentucky's judicial elections from being sullied. From that came a screening committee that observed the campaigns, and a pledge for candidates to sign. It has worked very well.
Perhaps Chief Justice John Minton should convene a similar meeting to address this potential threat to the independence of our elected judiciary in Kentucky. And perhaps it's time to take a harder look at some of the proposals -- notably those of the late Justice William McAnulty -- to replace the elective system with an appointive process.
With certain exceptions, Kentucky's judicial system is working, though. This bad decision must not prevent it from continuing to do so.
Labels: Constitutional Rights, Keeping them honest, News reporting, Politics, The Constitution
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 8:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home