Litigation

OH Court Revises Judicial Campaign Rules

By Peter Hardin

The Ohio Supreme Court has revised rules for judicial campaigns in order to comply with a recent federal appeals court decision that struck down restrictions in neighboring Kentucky.

In a press release, the Ohio Supreme Court announced a revised rule permitting judicial candidates to advertise their political party affiliations, while saying they “should consider the effect that partisanship has on the principles of judicial independence, integrity, and impartiality.”

The court also announced a revised rule permitting judicial candidates to directly solicit campaign contributions in certain circumstances: “when speaking to an audience of twenty or more individuals;? and in letters for distribution by a candidate?s campaign committee, when these letters “direct contributions to be sent to the campaign committee and not to the judicial candidate.?

According to a Cleveland Plain Dealer article,  “The changes are significant for a court that in recent years has grappled with the perception that its political makeup threatened the judicial branch of government’s goal of impartiality.”

Judicial candidates run in partisan primaries for nomination in Ohio, but in the general election they run without partisan identification, the Dayton Daily News noted. As a result of the new rules, that newspaper reported, “Judges in Ohio now can openly be politicians.”

Last month, the Cincinnati-based Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Kentucky?s prohibitions on judicial candidates soliciting campaign money, and on advertising their party affiliations, were written in a way that violates free-speech protections under the First Amendment (see Gavel Grab).

The Ohio Democratic Party was among plaintiffs who recently filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to throw out Ohio’s restrictions on judges advertising their party affiliations or personally soliciting campaign donations.

Chris Redfern, state Democratic chairman, said the lawsuit will stay be pursued. ?What do they expect, that candidates whisper their parties to would-be voters?? Redfern said.

Justice Paul Pfeifer dissented on the court’s 4-1 vote adding a comment to the party affiliation rule that candidates should “consider the effect of partisanship.”  Justice Pfeifer also dissented on the amended solicitation rule and on a comment to it. Here is the comment, discussing reasons for continuing a general ban on personal solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions:

?These limitations protect four vital interests: (1) avoiding the appearance of coercion or quid pro quo, especially when a judicial candidate engages in a one-on-one solicitation of a lawyer or party who appears before the court; (2) preserving both the appearance and reality of an impartial, independent, and noncorrupt judiciary; (3) ensuring the public?s right to due process and fairness; and (4) furthering the public trust and confidence in the impartiality of the judicial decision-maker. Rule 4.4(A) recognizes that some forms of solicitation are less coercive and less intrusive than others and permits a candidate to engage in solicitations that are less personal and directed at a wider audience.?

Full post as published by The Gavel on August 12, 2010 (boomark / email).