Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Do Kentucky’s Rules of Judicial Campaign Conduct Unfairly Stifle Free Speech?

KY Supreme Court Candidate Marcus Carey rebuttal to editorials on his lawsuit:

After reading recent editorials rebuking the First Amendment suit filed in Frankfort seeking to clarify Kentucky’s rules of judicial campaign conduct, it is obviously necessary to explain the true significance and reason for this important litigation. Because these editorials are erroneous on some points and extremely misleading on others, it would be a grossly unfair to the readers if these opinions were permitted to stand without rebuttal.

First, the suit does not seek to inject “hot button” issues into judicial races. Kentucky voters, every day, are asking judicial candidates questions regarding their beliefs and values. Unfortunately there is swirling doubt about what the law will allow judicial candidates to say. This suit seeks to clarify that issue for the benefit of all candidates and the public.

Second, many candidates have carefully restricted their conduct so as to comply with Kentucky’s pronouncements. Conscientious candidates have sought ethics opinions and politely refused to answer voters’ questions as directed by those ethics opinions. Voters however consistently recoil at a candidate’s refusal to answer questions, regardless how polite the refusal.

While some candidates refuse to answer voter’s questions other candidates, apparently relying upon recent cases decided by United States Supreme Court have openly announced their party affiliation and stated their views on a variety of other topics. The American notion of justice tells us that there is something inherently wrong that needs to be fixed in an election process where playing by the rules is a disadvantage.

Third, it is not the goal of the suit to “disintegrate” the public’s faith in the judiciary, but rather to encourage the public to become more fully engaged the selection process. The suit seeks to remove unconstitutional barriers that have for too long prevented valuable information from reaching voters. Such barriers have been labeled “incumbent protection policies,” and stricken down as unconstitutional.

Fourth, this suit does not seek permission for any candidate to “prejudge” cases. The suit does however seek permission for the public to prejudge would be judges. The suit very clearly empowers those whom our founding fathers intended to be the best judge of their own future, the public. And this suit reaffirms our faith that the public will not only make wise choices about the values of candidates for judicial office but also about his/her ability to remain independent and impartial from the influences of special interests. Keeping the public in the dark is not consistent with the American election process. And despite recently developed local traditions, the Supreme Court of the United States agrees.

The goals of this suit seek to promote the highest duties of a Supreme Court Justice –a constitutionalist who trusts the public to decide matters for themselves and commits to apply the law as the people have written it. It would seem that for a candidate to this high office to sponsor, advocate for, or abide by anything less would be a violation of the candidate’s solemn oath as an office of the court, to be faithful and true to the Constitution. There is no room in a nation ruled by law to discourage liberty for the sake of preserving unlawful traditions.

This suit will clarify and establish the rules all candidates will have to live by. And regardless which side prevails, and in contrast to other nations in the world, the very fact that this suit has been brought will reaffirm our faith in our ability to resolve disputes through the peaceful and orderly application of law and through our American system of civil Justice.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN