U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Katz last week ruled that judicial candidates in Pennsylvania can discuss their views on political issues, including abortion, as long as they do not promise to rule in a particular way if elected, the AP/Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader reports. Katz last week also lifted an order issued in May that temporarily halted enforcement of a rule in the state's Code of Judicial Conduct that prevents candidates from publicly disclosing their views on political issues (Jackson, AP/Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader, 10/23).

The Pennsylvania Family Institute and six judicial candidates from Lancaster County, Pa., in May filed a federal lawsuit that claims a lack of clarity in the rule. The lawsuit targets a provision of the judicial code that bars candidates from pledging 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."

PFI mailed a questionnaire to 120 candidates for state and county judgeships in the May 15 primary, seeking their views on abortion and other issues. Nineteen candidates responded, and many of the candidates who responded declined to answer some questions, citing their concerns about ethics rules violations (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 5/3).

Ruling, Comments
Katz in a 68-page opinion said that the judicial code is constitutional as long as judges do not "pledge, promise or commitment to adjudicate a particular result." Katz added that answering questions about political issues is only one factor judicial candidates should consider when deciding whether to discuss controversial topics publicly. "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 in his ruling, adding that he "wholeheartedly agreed with these sentiments." Under Katz's ruling, the defendants in the case are barred from advocating for a broader interpretation of the rule in the future.

Katz in his ruling referenced an affidavit from Joseph Massa, chief counsel for the judicial conduct board, which summarized the rule. Massa said that statements such as "I do not favor abortions" would be acceptable under the rule. However, statements such as "I would not uphold a sentence of capital punishment" would be unacceptable, Massa said. He added that he is not aware of any complaint against a judicial candidate for violating the rule, adding that none of the candidates who responded to the institute's survey violated the rule.

PFI President Michael Geer said the group has not decided whether to appeal Katz's ruling but added that it provided clarity. "We accomplished the public good we were seeking," Geer said, adding that the ruling will make it "tough for judicial candidates to simply hide" behind the rule. Art Heinz, a spokesperson for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, said the state Supreme Court occasionally revises the judicial code, but the administrative office is "not aware of any changes being proposed right now" (AP/Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader, 10/23).

The ruling is available online (.pdf).

Reprinted with kind permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.