[Reprinted with permission from the Pennsylvania Order of Liberty Blog.]
HARRISBURG (May 9) - Democracy Rising PA today asked the U.S. District Court in Harrisburg to declare part of the state's canons of judicial ethics unconstitutional because they violate the right of Democracy Rising PA and other organizations to educate voters about issues facing the courts.
If granted, the request would allow candidates for judge this year to answer questions about judicial reform proposals without fear of being penalized by the state's Judicial Conduct Board. The questions are included in a questionnaire sponsored by Democracy Rising PA and eight other organizations.
"These organizations are doing our best to educate citizens before this year's elections about legitimate issues affecting citizen confidence in our court system," said DRPA Co-founder Tim Potts.
"We have been frustrated in this work by candidates who claim the state's canons of judicial ethics prohibit them from answering some questions. Under recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, that is simply false, and we're asking the federal court to say so."
At issue is a provision in Canon 7 that prohibits judicial candidates from "mak[ing] statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court...."
DR argues that the phrase "appear to commit" is so vague that it violates a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 US 765, and other cases. Together, the cases both allow judicial candidates to answer questions and give organizations that educate voters a right to obtain and publicize answers without the threat of punishment being imposed on the candidates.
Under White, candidates are only prohibited from promising or predicting how they would rule on particular cases or kinds of cases. For example, it would be misconduct for a candidate to promise that he or she would rule a particular way on cases affecting publicly financed health care for poor children.
Among the issues the questionnaire addresses are:
- Hiring friends and relatives for important positions in the court system.
- Courts issuing orders without opinions that explain their legal authority and reasoning.
- Concealing administrative documents that govern expenditures by individual judges.
- Having secret conversations between judges, lawmakers and the governor.
- Whether the courts are misinterpreting the Constitution and thereby failing to protect citizens from abuses by the legislature and governor.
The complaint cites six candidates who, in responding to the questionnaire, explicitly cite Canon 7 as prohibiting them from answering questions. They are:
- Debra Todd, an Allegheny County candidate for PA Supreme Court
- Jackie Shogan, an Allegheny County candidate for PA Superior Court
- Chuck Pascal, a candidate for Armstrong County Court of Common Pleas
- Gary Gilman, a candidate for Bucks County Court of Common Pleas
- Cindy Dunlap Hinkle, a candidate for Butler County Court of Common Pleas
- Lucy Longo, a candidate for Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas
"Some argue whether we should elect our judges, but the fact is that we are electing our judges this year and will continue to elect our judges until at least 2011," Potts said.
"As long as we elect judges, citizens need to know where the candidates stand. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court should encourage, not i! mpede, educating voters. It is foolish to prohibit those who know the most about the court system from discussing how to improve it," he added.
Democracy Rising PA is a non-partisan, non-profit advocate for improving state government.
Note: Candidate responses are available in directories at the Democracy Rising PA web site.
Copyright © 2007, THE CENTRIST; All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment