James Madison Center

PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com

Federal Court Allows Judicial Candidates To State Their Views On Questionnaires

Today, an Indiana federal court granted an injunction against rules preventing judicial candidates from answering a candidate questionnaire. The parties to the suit include Torrey Bauer and Judge David Certo, judicial candidates in the upcoming election, and Indiana Right to Life, who sent judicial candidates questionnaires asking them to voice their opinion on various issues.

Judge Springmann held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenge to the constitutionality of Indiana’s judicial canons that forbid judicial candidates from making “pledges or promises” of conduct in office or statements that “commit or appear to commit” candidates on issues likely to come before. Plaintiffs claim that these canons violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because they prohibited candidates from simply announcing their views on issues. The court's ruling prevents Indiana's Commission on Judicial Qualifications from enforcing these provisions against judicial candidates who answer the IRTL questionnaire.

Indiana Right to Life had sent a questionnaire to candidates for judicial office prior to the May 6, 2008, primary requesting that they state their views on policies and court decisions related to such matters as assisted-suicide and abortion. Judge Certo along with many other judicial candidates, refused to do so, concerned that he would be disciplined by the Commission in light of the judicial rules and the Commission's interpretation of their rules. Mr. Bauer had answered the questionnaire but recognizes that doing so exposes him to discipline. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from “announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues.

According to James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the Indiana judicial canons “contradict the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and subsequent federal court ruling that recognize that judicial candidates have a right to respond to questionnaires like this and that voters have a right to hear what they have to say.” Bopp, who successfully argued the case challenging the Minnesota judicial rule struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), stated that Indiana’s canons and the Commission's interpretation of them “cover the same unconstitutional ground” as Minnesota’s rule that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their views had done.

The case is Bauer v. Shepard, No. 3:08-cv-196 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2008). The decision is available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, under the “Judicial Accountability Project” link.

James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.

PRESS RELEASE
Monday, May 5, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Indiana Supreme Court Advised To Make Judicial Rules Constitutional

Today, the James Madison Center submitted its Comments on Indiana’s Proposed Judicial Rules, advocating that the Indiana Supreme Court take a close look at all of its provisions in the context of the First Amendment. The Center focused in particular on the Rules’ commits provision and a new recusal provision, both of which affect judges’ and judicial candidates’ speech in the election context. The Court invited public comment on the rules.

Previous versions of the two provisions are currently being challenged in federal court because they reach too much constitutionally protected speech. The Proposed Rules make significant changes to those provisions, but not enough to make them constitutional. They still can cause judicial candidates to refrain from announcing their views because they either believe the rule prohibits them from announcing them or because if they do speak, they will have to recuse themselves from a case involving that issue. Violations of either provision can result in discipline.

The United States Supreme Court has held unconstitutional a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from “announc[ing] their views on disputed legal or political issues.” The Rules continue to reach such protected speech because they are unclearly drafted, making judicial candidates guess at their meaning and ultimately to chose not to speak at all.

According to attorney James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for the Center, “this is Indiana’s opportunity to get these rules right. Unless they are changed, their revision will be short-lived because they are contrary to federal law and will likely be found unconstitutional.” Bopp emphasizes, “judicial candidates and judges should never pledge or promise certain results in a particular case or class of cases. But these rules reach much more broadly than that.”

The Indiana Comments are available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, under the “Judicial Accountability Project” link.

James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.

PRESS RELEASE
Thursday, May 2, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Fourth Circuit Strikes Major Portions of North Carolina Campaign Finance Law And Upholds Some Aspects of North Carolina Public Financing for Judicial Candidates

Yesterday, the Fourth Circuit issued two important decisions on campaign finance, one ruling as unconstitutional North Carolina’s regulations of ordinary political speech and independent, multipurpose organizations, and the other finding certain aspects of North Carolina's public financing of judicial campaigns to withstand constitutional review.

In North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake, the court ruled that North Carolina may not regulate communications based on their context or “essential nature,” that it may not treat as a PAC an organization that does not have the major purpose of nominating or electing a candidate, and that may not limit contributions to PAC’s that do not make contributions to candidates’ campaigns but only make independent expenditures.

The first North Carolina law considered a communication to “support or oppose” a candidate if it found that to be its “essential nature.” Under the law’s “reasonable person” standard, the state could consider “the language of the communication as a whole” as well as its timing, distribution, and cost. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the law’s “reasonable person” context-based interpretation of a communication’s “essential nature” ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s holding in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. that such a standard was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

The second law imposed the onerous organizational, recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure requirements of a PAC on any group North Carolina determined had election-related activity as a major purpose of the group. The court ruled that the Supreme Court’s decisions require that government may not treat an organization as a PAC unless it has “the” major purpose of supporting or opposing candidates. The court ruled that “the” major purpose of an organization can be found in the group’s governing documents or by how it spends the majority of its funds, while North Carolina’s basing regulation on “a” major purpose invited regulation of protected political speech and the State provided “absolutely no direction” as to how it would determine what a group’s major purposes were.

The court also ruled that applying contribution limits on PAC’s that only made independent expenditures were unconstitutional because they are not closely drawn to North Carolina’s interest in preventing corruption. The court found that any danger of “undue influence” over candidates was too remote when PAC’s were unconnected to any candidate and used their funds exclusively for communication of their own political messages.

“The Fourth Circuit has affirmed that the First Amendment’s primary application is to protect the ordinary political speech of citizens,” says James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “And individuals don’t become a danger by banding together to amplify their voice and expressing their views on issues or on candidates for office.”

The second case, Duke v. Leake, involved judicial candidate Judge Duke and two of North Carolina Right to Life’s political action committees, who wanted to make expenditures and contributions during the 2006 election cycle without triggering additional funds to that candidate's opponent.

North Carolina's funding scheme imposes substantial reporting requirements on candidates whose opponent receives public funds. Included in that report is money spent by third parties supporting that non-funded candidate. The scheme also completely bans contributions during the last 21 days of the election cycle. The scheme functions as a penalty upon judicial candidates who do not receive public funds as it matches each dollar judicial candidates, and entities independently supporting that candidate, raise and spend on their own with equal funds for any publicly financed opponents once a threshold amount is reached.

The court ruled that these restrictions and requirements did not unconstitutionally burden candidates like Judge Duke or third party entities. Nor, said the court, does the scheme coerce candidates to participate in the scheme.

Says James Bopp, Jr., counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, "this decision is wholly inconsistent with Supreme Court and other decisions involving campaign finance. The scheme's restrictions and penalties violate judicial candidates' freedom of speech–they must choose between speaking and thereby providing fund to their opponent, or not speaking at all.” He continues, “third parties such as the PACs in this suit are placed in a position where their speech regarding a candidate may in fact result in funding that candidate’s opponent. The result is that these entities choose not to speak, a effect that is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.”

“We intend to seek further review of these restriction by the full 4th Circuit and the United States Supreme Court,” Bopp said.

Copies of the decisions are available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, under the “Campaign Finance Reform” link.

PRESS RELEASE
April 25, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com

Injunction Sought Against Unfair Law Limiting Business Campaign Contributions

Late last year, New York City enacted new campaign finance laws which unfairly reduced the contribution limits for the business community to just one-tenth of what everyone else is allowed to contribute, including labor unions. Yesterday, a bipartisan coalition of candidates, business people, and others asked a federal court to keep New York City from enforcing these laws. Besides drastically lowering the contribution limits for business people, the new laws also make their contributions unmatchable under the City’s public funding scheme, and outlaw contributions from LLCs, LLPs and partnerships.

In an obvious effort to favor labor unions, contributions from labor unions and their officers and members are not reduced, even though they also do business with the city.

A lawsuit, filed by the same coalition in February, claims that these new laws are an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The laws also discriminate against minority voters and candidates in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection of the laws.

The motion for preliminary injunction, filed yesterday, asks the Court to order New York City not to enforce these challenged provisions until the lawsuit is decided. “These laws take away peoples’ constitutional rights to speak and associate freely and be treated equally,” James Bopp, Jr., attorney for the plaintiffs, explained. “Some of the plaintiffs want to run for office, but cannot raise enough money to do so because of these unconstitutional laws. Other plaintiffs want to contribute to candidates’ campaigns, but can only contribute a fraction of what other citizens are allowed.”

As for why the plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction instead of waiting for the resolution of the lawsuit, Mr. Bopp said, “New York City is in the midst of campaign cycle. Candidates are raising money right now. It is important for them to be able to do so—otherwise, they will not be able to fund their campaigns.”

A copy of the preliminary injunction motion may be obtained at the James Madison Center website, located at jamesmadisoncenter.org.

James Bopp, Jr. has a national campaign finance and election law practice with Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society. Mr. Bopp has argued and won four campaign finance cases in the United States Supreme Court, as well as numerous other cases across the country.

PRESS RELEASE
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Kansas Supreme Court Briefed On Meaning of Judicial Canons

Today, the Kansas Supreme Court received briefing regarding the interpretation of three judicial rules--the pledges and promises clause, the commits clause, and the solicitation clause, all prohibiting speech in the election context. The briefing stemmed from a lawsuit filed in federal court by Kansas Judicial Review and two judicial candidates, Judge Charles M. Hart and Judge Robb Rumsey, in 2006. All three clauses were preventing judicial candidates from answering Kansas Judicial Review's questionnaire, and the solicitation clause was also preventing judicial candidates from going door-to-door to seek nomination petition signatures from citizens.

The case was brought against members of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications and members of the Disciplinary Administrator’s office – entities charged with disciplining judges and lawyers who violate the judicial canons of Kansas and the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. After the District Court granted a preliminary injunction request, the Defendants appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit. That court determined that the meaning of the pledges and promises clause, the commits clause, and the solicitation clause was sufficient undefined to warrant asking the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the meaning of its rules.

Kansas Judicial Review's questionnaire requested that the candidates and judges state their views on policies and court decisions related to taxation, same-sex marriage, the death penalty and various other issues. All but one of the seven who responded refused to answer any of the questions, stating that they believed this would violate the Kansas canons governing judicial candidates’ speech.

The United States Supreme Court has held unconstitutional a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from “announc[ing] their views on disputed legal or political issues.” But the Kansas canons and advisory opinions promulgated by the Kansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel that forbid judicial candidates from pledging or promising and from committing to an issue that might come before them as a judge have also been used to prevent judicial candidates from announcing their opinions. In addition, the canons and advisory opinions restrict judicial candidates from going door-to-door to ask citizens to sign nomination petitions.

According to attorney James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the Kansas rules “unfortunately cannot be construed in a constitutional way because the plain language of the provisions is both clear and sweeping. They contradict the U.S. Supreme Court, which clearly stated that judicial candidates have a right to respond to surveys like this and that voters have a right to hear what they have to say.” In regard to the solicitation provision Bopp added, “The provision is very clearly a ban on candidates seeking nomination petition signatures and is a blatant infringement on what should be protected candidate speech.”

The case is Kansas Judicial Review, et al. v. Stout, et al., No. 08-100170-S. The Kansas Supreme Court brief is available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, under the “Judicial Accountability Project” link.

PRESS RELEASE
Monday, April 21, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Judicial Candidates Sue to Protect Judicial Speech Rights

Two Indiana judicial candidates filed suit last Friday in federal court to block enforcement of Indiana rules prohibiting them from responding to a survey asking their views on abortion, euthanasia, and other issues. Judge David Certo, a Superior Court Judge in Marion County, and Torrey Bauer, a candidate for Superior Court Judge in Kosciusko County are joined in the suit by Indiana Right to Life Committee, a non-profit organization.

The case arises out of a survey Indiana Right to Life sent to candidates for judicial office in the May 2008 election, requesting that they state their views on policies and court decisions related to abortion, euthanasia, and other related issues . Several of the judicial candidates refused to do so, especially in view of a Preliminary Advisory Opinion issue by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications that warned that judicial candidates who make “broad statements on disputed social and legal issues” run the risk of violating the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.

Indiana Right to Life had previously challenged these Indiana rules during the 2004 election. But while a federal district court initially found the Canons in question unconstitutional, the case was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that Indiana Right to Life had not shown there were any judicial candidates who wanted to answer its questions.

That’s not a problem this time, as two of Indiana Right to Life’s co-plaintiffs are candidates for judicial election in 2008.

According to Terre Haute attorney James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the Indiana rules “contradict the U.S. Supreme Court, which clearly stated that judicial candidates have a right to respond to surveys like this and that voters have a right to hear what they have to say.” Bopp, who argued the case challenging the Minnesota judicial rule struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), stated that Indiana’s rules and policy were being interpreted to suppress the same sort of free speech that Minnesota had tried to punish. “Judicial candidates should be able to respond to questions about their beliefs so that voters will have something more to vote on other than their names, law school rank, and date of birth,” said Bopp.

Plaintiffs have asked for a temporary restraining order so that judges may respond to Indiana Right to Life’s survey without fear of disciplinary action prior to the May 6 primary.

The case is Bauer v. Shepard, et al., No. 08-CV-196 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2008). The complaint and memorandum supporting the motion for temporary restraining order are available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, under the “Judicial Accountability Project” link.

James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice with the Terre Haute, Indiana, firm of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.

PRESS RELEASE
April 17, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com

Human Life of Washington Challenges
State Restrictions on Its Issue Advocacy

Yesterday, Human Life of Washington ("HLW") filed suit in federal court challenging Washington's restrictions on it for doing issue advocacy. Issue advocacy is protected from state restriction by the First Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in the Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission decision. Washington's vague and overbroad election laws, however, impose onerous burdens on issue advocacy, including classifying HLW as a "political committee" ("PAC"), if it were to engage in its issue advocacy. A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a state may not impose PAC status or PAC-like burdens on an organization that engages in issue advocacy.

HLW has long opposed assisted suicide as part of its prolife advocacy seeking legal protection for innocent human life from fertilization to natural death. Ordinarily, HLW is free to do issue advocacy about assisted suicide. But because efforts are now underway to qualify and pass a ballot initiative ("I-1000") legalizing assisted suicide, HLW's issue advocacy on the same subject would be restricted by vague and overbroad state laws regulating "political committees," "independent expenditures," "political advertising," and any "rating, evaluation, endorsement or recommendation."

HLW's planned communications would not expressly advocate for the passage or defeat of I-1000, but the challenged provisions are imposed by Washington where an organization merely makes communications that "support" or "oppose," or are "for" or "against," a ballot initiative. These terms are undefined and inherently vague, so HLW faces a clear danger that if it makes communications opposing assisted suicide it will be considered to have opposed I-1000, triggering all the burdens put on a PAC by Washington law.

Washington also imposes PAC status on groups with "a major purpose" of passing or defeating ballot initiatives (determined on the basis of activity judged under the flawed support/oppose test) instead of the test mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court, which permits imposing PAC status on where unambiguous campaign activity is "the major purpose" of an organization.

James Bopp, Jr., the lead attorney representing HLW states: "This case is simple. Human Life of Washington wants to freely engage in constitutionally-protected issue advocacy and not have Washington burden it with heavy 'political committee' requirements. Under controlling decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, Washington may neither restrict issue advocacy nor impose PAC burdens. Washington has substituted two vague and overbroad constitutional tests for the tests required by the U.S. Constitution. The challenged provisions should swiftly be declared unconstitutional and Washington should be enjoined, both preliminarily and permanently, from enforcing them."

The case is titled Human Life of Washington v. Brumsickle, and is in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. A copy of the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction are available at the James Madison Center's website www.jamesmadisoncenter.org.

James Bopp, Jr. has a national campaign finance and election law practice with Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

PRESS RELEASE
March 21, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com

Judge Orders Wisconsin to Allow Whitewater Resident to Distribute
Post Cards and Yard Signs Regarding Referendums

Yesterday, a federal judge ordered that a Wisconsin resident may send post cards and make yard signs opposing a local referendum without complying with state campaign finance laws.

In an effort to defeat an upcoming town referendum, John Swaffer, Jr. planned to distribute post cards and yard signs urging his fellow residents to vote against it. However, under Wisconsin campaign finance law, he could not pay for these communications unless he first registered with the State of Wisconsin as a political committee and filed detailed periodic reports throughout the year. The court yesterday enjoined the state from enforcing these laws against him.

James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing Mr. Swaffer states: “This is a victory for the First Amendment. We are pleased that Mr. Swaffer is now free to participate in his activities and we are hopeful that these laws will be declared unconstitutional.”

Last week, Mr. Swaffer filed suit arguing that provisions of Wisconsin campaign finance law violate his First Amendment right to free speech and requested a preliminary injunction that would allow him to undertake his activities without complying with the challenged laws.

The case is titled Swaffer v. Deininger, 08-C0208, and is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. A copy of the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction are available at the James Madison Center’s website www.jamesmadisoncenter.org.

James Bopp, Jr. has a national campaign finance and election law practice with Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

PRESS RELEASE
March 11, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com

Whitewater Resident Challenges Restrictions on Referendum Communications

A lawsuit was filed late yesterday in federal court in Wisconsin challenging state laws that restrict communications regarding local referendums.

The suit involves a local referendum in the town of Whitewater that will be put to a vote on April 1. The plaintiff John Swaffer, Jr., a resident of Whitewater, wants to send post cards and make yard signs urging his fellow residents to vote against the referendum. Under Wisconsin campaign finance law, Mr. Swaffer cannot pay for these communications unless he registers with the State of Wisconsin as a political committee and files detailed periodic reports throughout the year. Mr. Swaffer filed suit arguing that these laws violate his First Amendment right to free speech.

James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing Mr. Swaffer states: “This is a classic example of campaign finance laws overreaching. It’s a sad day when an individual can’t send a post card concerning a referendum in his own town without being extensively regulated by the state.”

The case is titled Swaffer v. Deininger, 08-C0208, and was assigned to Judge J.P. Stadtmueller in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Mr. Swaffer has asked for a temporary restraining order that would allow him to immediately undertake his activities without complying with the challenged laws.

A copy of the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction are available at the James Madison Center’s website www.jamesmadisoncenter.org.

James Bopp, Jr. has a national campaign finance and election law practice with Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/243-0825; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Judicial Candidate Sues Over 20 Person Solicitation Rule

Minnesota Supreme Court candidate Gregory Wersal, who previously won a case in the Supreme Court challenging Minnesota’s restrictions on speech during judicial elections, was back in federal court today challenging a Minnesota rule limiting the ability of judicial candidates to personally solicit campaign funds. In 2004, Minnesota’s judicial canon prohibiting all personal solicitations by a judge or judicial candidate was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals as violating the First Amendment. Minnesota responded by passing a new rule allowing candidates to personally solicit money - but only to groups of 20 or more. Wersal’s suit claims that this new provision limits his ability to raise needed campaign funds, and is unconstitutional for the same reasons as the previous provision.

Also challenged is a judicial canon prohibiting judicial candidates from making endorsements.

According to attorney James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, “these canons are in direct conflict with federal court precedent and are inconsistent with the spirit of the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that said judicial candidates have full First Amendment protection for their political speech. The First Amendment protects political speech to small groups or individuals just as much as it does speech to groups of 20 or more. There’s nothing magical about the number 20 that makes the First Amendment not apply.”

The case is Wersal v. Sexton, et al., 08-CV-615, and was assigned to District Court Judge David Doty. The complaint and memorandum supporting the motion for preliminary injunction are available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, under the “Judicial Accountability Project” link.

Bopp, an expert in campaign regulations, successfully argued the 2004 challenge to Minnesota’s previous solicitation clause, as well as the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), which forms the basis for this action.

PRESS RELEASE
Friday, February 29, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/243-0825; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Judge Files Suit Over Democratic Party Membership

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John Siefert filed a constitutional challenge in federal court Thursday in Madison against a Wisconsin regulation barring judges from belonging to political parties. Judges are elected in Wisconsin on a non-partisan basis, and a provision of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits individuals from belonging to a political party while serving as a judge or running for judicial office. The suit claims that this provision violates Siefert’s First Amendment right to join the Democratic party.

Also challenged are judicial canons prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions, and from making endorsements. Similar provisions have been held unconstitutional previously by other federal courts.

According to attorney James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, “these canons are in direct conflict with federal court precedent and are inconsistent with the spirit of the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that said judicial candidates have full First Amendment protection for their political speech. Stating a party preference is just a shorthand for announcing your political views.”

The case is Siefert v. Alexander, et al., 3:08-cv-126. The complaint and memorandum supporting the motion for preliminary injunction are available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, under the “Judicial Accountability Project” link on Friday, February 29, 2008.

Bopp, an expert in campaign regulations, successfully argued a case last year challenging separate provisions of Wisconsin’s Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), which forms the basis for this action.

PRESS RELEASE
February 27, 2008
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com

Additional Plaintiffs Join Lawsuit Challenging City's New Campaign Finance
Laws; A State Senator and City Councilman Are Among New Plaintiffs

A group of Democrats well-known in government service has joined a Federal lawsuit that was filed earlier this month against New York City challenging its new campaign finance laws.

Attorney James Bopp, Jr., today filed an amended complaint to the lawsuit that was filed on February 11 to include additional plaintiffs, among them former City Council member and current State Senator Martin Dilan, current City Council member Leroy Comrie and former candidate for City Council Marlene Tapper, all Democrats.

They join Republicans Tom Ognibene, Viviana Vazquez-Hernandez, and Yvette Velazquez Bennett in asserting that the new campaign finance laws unconstitutionally burden the free speech rights of candidates and their supporters. The three new plaintiffs also assert that the law violates their rights as both minority candidates and minority voters under the Voting Rights Act.

Most of the challenges in this lawsuit focus on Local Law No. 34 of 2007, which set much lower campaign contribution limits for those having business dealings with the city, made such contributions unmatchable for public funds, and outlawed campaign contributions from LLCs, LLPs and partnerships. The lawsuit claims that these new laws are unconstitutional under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments and will also discriminate against minority candidates in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Interestingly, the law left untouched contributions from unions, which also do business with the city. “Unions can still contribute up to the regular contribution limits, while businesses and lobbyists, and people connected with them, are only allowed to contribute a tenth as much,” explained Mr. Bopp. “This indicates that the law was enacted for a partisan political effect.”