Federal court rules Pa. candidates for judge can talk about issues
HARRISBURG — Judicial candidates in Pennsylvania are free to discuss the issues of the day on the campaign trail, so long as they do not promise to rule in a particular way once they are elected, a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling, issued by Senior Judge Marvin Katz of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia last week, stemmed from a lawsuit filed in the spring by the conservative Pennsylvania Family Institute and a half-dozen judicial candidates. The defendants were individual members of the state Judicial Conduct Board and certain officials in the state Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
At issue is a provision in the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct that bars judicial candidates from promising anything more than "the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of office" and from making statements that "commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court."
The plaintiffs said the rule was unconstitutionally vague, but the judge said it passes constitutional muster, so long as judges don't "pledge, promise or commitment to adjudicate a particular result."
The institute sent a questionnaire to 120 candidates for state and county judgeships, soliciting their views on issues that included abortion, gay marriage and school prayer. The plaintiffs, all Republicans running in the May 15 primary, said they wanted to respond to the institute's survey and one from another group, but declined to do so out of fear that it would violate the rule on campaign speech.
Only 19 candidates responded to the institute's questionnaire, according to court papers.
Katz, who also lifted his May order temporarily halting enforcement of the rule, stressed that it is only one factor that aspiring judges must consider in deciding whether to speak out on controversial topics.
"Many candidates refused to answer those questions, because they feared their answers would force them to recuse themselves from future cases, and more importantly, cast doubt on the impartiality and integrity of Pennsylvania's courts," Katz wrote.
He said he "wholeheartedly agreed with these sentiments."
