PRESS RELEASE 
Friday, October 1, 2004
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Alaska Rules on Judicial Speech Challenged

Suit was filed today in federal court to block enforcement of Alaska's rules that forbid state court judicial candidates from responding to a survey asking their views on legal and political issues. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Alaska in Anchorage. Alaska Right to Life Political Action Committee was joined in the suit by a North Pole resident, Michael W. Miller, who seeks information on state judicial candidates. The case was brought against members of the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Alaska Bar Counsel – bodies charged with disciplining judges and lawyers who violate the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct.

Alaska 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 on abortion, euthanasia, and related matters. Several of the judicial candidates refused to do so, especially in view of a 2002 letter from the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct stating that "questions that reflect a pre-judgment of a controversial issue or judicial philosophy that could predict outcome in a case are to be avoided." The letter acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court had held a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from "announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues" unconstitutional, but suggested that Alaska judicial candidates could be disciplined for announcing their views under Alaska rules.

According to James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for plaintiffs Alaska Right to Life and Mike Miller, the Alaska rules "fly in the face of the 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 Alaska's rules and policy were being interpreted to "cover the same unconstitutional territory" as Minnesota's rule that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their views had done. "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.

Alaska Right to Life 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.