PRESS RELEASE 
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Indiana Rules Prohibiting Judicial Candidates' Speech Challenged

Indiana Right to Life Committee filed suit yesterday in federal court to block enforcement of Indiana rules that forbid state court judicial candidates from responding to a survey asking their legal and political views on abortion , euthanasia, and other issues. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in Lafayette. Indiana Right to Life Committee was joined in the suit by Tippecanoe County, Indiana, residents Arline Sprau and Mary P. Hall, who seek information on state judicial candidates. The case was brought against members of the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, including Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard, and members of the Indiana Disciplinary Commission – bodies charged with disciplining judges and lawyers who violate the Indiana of Judicial Conduct.

Indiana Right to Life had sent a survey to candidates for judicial office in the November 2004 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.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held unconstitutional a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from "announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues." But the Indiana Commission suggested that Indiana judicial candidates could nevertheless be disciplined for announcing their views under separate Indiana rules that forbid judicial candidates from pledging or promising and from committing to a particular result in a case.

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.

Indiana Right to Life Committee asked for a preliminary injunction so that it judges may respond to their survey without fear of disciplinary action. It hopes to publish the candidates' responses on their website before the November 2004 election.