FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685;
jboppjr@aol.com

James Madison Center for Free Speech Seeks to Enjoin North Carolina's
Public Financing Scheme Before 2006 Judicial Election Campaigns Begin

Today, Judge Barbara Jackson of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judge Rusty Duke of the North Carolina Superior Court, along with North Carolina Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures and North Carolina Right to Life State Political Action Committee, seek to enjoin enforcement of the state's public funding provisions and a $50 surcharge that provides funds to the public funding scheme in a class action federal suit in the Middle District of North Carolina, arguing that the provisions unconstitutionally infringe on their First Amendment free speech rights.

Judge Duke, who intends to run for Supreme Court Justice in 2006, and Judge Jackson are challenging the effect the financing scheme has on candidates who are not participating in the scheme, but who intend to raise their own campaign funds. Judge Duke, who does not intend to participate in the scheme and has already raised significant financial support for his campaign, claims that the scheme's provisions will severely limit his campaign strategies and has determined he will not run unless the scheme is enjoined. Judge Jackson did not qualify to participate in the public financing scheme during her campaign in 2004 and found that her ability to raise and spend funds on her own was severely restricted under the funding scheme. Both Judge Jackson and Judge Duke are bringing this suit on behalf of themselves as well as all judicial candidates who do not participate in the public financing scheme.

The scheme functions as a penalty upon judicial candidates who do not receive public funds as it matches each dollar a judicial candidate raises and spends on their own with equal funds for any publicly financed opponents once a threshold amount is reached. James Bopp, Jr., counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, states that "the restrictions and penalties in this scheme violate judicial candidates' freedom of speech; judicial candidates who choose not to participate in the scheme must also choose between speaking and thereby providing fund to their opponent, or not speaking at all."

Similarly, the North Carolina Right to Life PACs involved in the suit, who wish to be involved in the upcoming 2006 election campaign, are subject to a ban on any contributes they wish to make to a judicial candidate 21 days before an election, and are required to follow a rigorous reporting schedule if they independently spend money supporting a candidate.

Of particular concern to the PACs is that the amount of money third parties contribute or expend in support of or opposing a candidate is included in determining when a participating candidate has been out-spent by a non-participating opponent and is entitled to rescue funds. "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," says Bopp. "The result is that these entities choose not to speak, a effect that is unconstitutional under the First Amendment."

Judge Jackson and Judge Duke also challenge a $50 surcharge provision that is imposed on all practicing attorneys in North Carolina. Because the money received from the surcharge fee is used to fund the public financing scheme, attorneys are compelled to support judicial candidates with whom they might disagree or oppose. "Such compelled speech contravenes the First Amendment's assurance of the freedom of speech," states Bopp.

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.