FOR
IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
Monday,
October
24,
2005
Contact:
James
Bopp,
Jr.
Phone
812/232-2434;
Fax
812/235-3685;
jboppjr@aol.com
Pennsylvania Rules Prohibiting Judicial Candidates' Speech Challenged
The
Pennsylvania
Family
Institute
filed
suit
today
in
federal
court
to
block
enforcement
of
Pennsylvania
rules
that
forbid
state
court
judicial
candidates
from
responding
to a
questionnaire
asking
their
legal
and
political
views
on
abortion
,
euthanasia,
and
other
issues.
The
suit
was
filed
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
Middle
District
of
Pennsylvania
in
Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania
Family
Institute
was
joined
in
the
suit
by
York
County,
Pennsylvania,
resident
Ronald
N.
Cohen
and
Centre
County,
Pennsylvania,
resident
Charles
L.
Stump,
who
seek
information
on
state
judicial
candidates.
The
case
was
brought
against
members
of
the
Pennsylvania
Judicial
Conduct
Board,
and
members
of
the
Pennsylvania
Office
of
Disciplinary
Counsel
–
bodies
charged
with
disciplining
judges
and
lawyers
who
violate
Pennsylvania's
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct,
Rules
Governing
Standards
of
Conduct
of
District
Justices,
and
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility.
The
Pennsylvania
Family
Institute
sent
a
questionnaire
to
candidates
for
judicial
office
in
the
November
2005
election,
requesting
that
they
state
their
views
on
policies
and
court
decisions
related
to
abortion,
religious
displays,
same-sex
marriage,
and
other
related
issues.
Several
of
the
judicial
candidates
refused
to
do
so.
Most
of
the
candidates
refused
to
respond
to
many
of
the
questions,
stating
that
they
believed
this
would
violate
Pennsylvania
rules
governing
judicial
candidates'
speech.
The
U.S.
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
Pennsylvania
Canons
and
Rules
suggest
that
Pennsylvania
judicial
candidates
could
nevertheless
be
disciplined
for
announcing
their
views
under
provisions
that
forbid
judicial
candidates
from
pledging
or
promising
and
from
committing
to
an
issue
that
might
come
before
them
as a
judge.
According
to
attorney
James
Bopp,
Jr.,
lead
counsel
for
the
plaintiffs,
the
Pennsylvania
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
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
Pennsylvania's
rules
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.
The
Pennsylvania
Family
Institute
asked
for
a
temporary
restraining
order
and
a
preliminary
injunction
so
that
judges
may
respond
to
their
questionnaire
without
fear
of
disciplinary
action.
It
hopes
to
publish
the
candidates'
responses
on
their
website
before
the
November
2005
election.
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.