The Kentucky Judicial
Campaign Conduct Committee is condemning the campaign tactics of both candidates
for a seat on the state Court of Appeals.
The committee finds that the
campaign of Judge Allison Jones of Prospect undermined the high standards by
which judicial campaigns should be conducted, by saying she is running for
re-election when she has never been elected, and by making scurrilous insinuations
on social media that a reasonable person would read as references to her opponent.
The Facebook post was made by the judge’s husband, Larry Jones, her campaign
treasurer, and carried the campaign logo.
The committee also finds that
the challenger in the 6th District race, Justin Sanders of
Covington, has also fallen short of the standards of judicial campaigning by implying
that Judge Jones lives in Louisville, when she does not, and that he has
misstated the role of a judge by saying that “Northern Kentuckians can best
assure fair representation” by electing him to the court.
The first complaint in the
race, against Judge Jones, was filed by Covington lawyer Robert E. Sanders, the
father of candidate Justin Sanders. The second complaint was filed by Judge
Jones against Justin Sanders.
Robert Sanders filed his
complaint Oct. 30. He cited a Sept. 21 Facebook post by Larry Jones, the second
through fourth paragraphs of which discussed Judge Jones’ opponent without
using his name. The fifth paragraph began, “And the lies. Wow, the lies have
started with personal attacks being spread throughout the communities. I do
have a warning though: He who lives in a glass house should not cast stones.
Allison does not want to go negative. It just isn’t her style. But whatever she
might be forced to do will be backed up by documented proof.”
The sixth paragraph began “For
instance, if it involves . . .” and went on to mention examples of misbehavior,
both personal and criminal. Robert Sanders’s complaint said that Justin Sanders
had never engaged in such behavior. The Jones campaign did not respond to the Sanders
complaint in writing, but Larry Jones said in an oral reply to the Committee
that he was not referring to Justin Sanders. The Committee finds that a
reasonable person would understand the paragraph to be referring to the
opposing candidate, because of the context, and that it was wholly inappropriate.
The Committee also finds that
Judge Jones misled voters by asking them to “re-elect” her in campaign
materials and a published statement. She was appointed to the court to fill a
vacancy, is seeking election to the unexpired term, and has never been elected
to public office.
The Sanders complaint also
noted that Judge Jones had scheduled for election night a drawing for
University of Kentucky basketball tickets among supporters who had promoted her
candidacy in certain ways on Facebook. The Committee is concerned that such
activity may undermine the integrity of the judiciary because state law says candidates
shall not “become liable in any way for money or other thing of value, either
directly or indirectly, to any person in consideration of the vote or financial
or moral support of that person.” The Jones campaign said it canceled the
drawing after receiving a copy of the Sanders complaint.
After it replied to the complaint,
the Jones campaign filed one against Sanders, alleging that he has misled
voters by attempting to portray Judge Jones as a resident of Louisville and/or
Jefferson County, which is outside the district. Jones lives in the Oldham
County portion of the city of Prospect.
The Sanders campaign said that
it has never said Jones lives in Louisville, but has said that she practices
law there. A newspaper column by Justin Sanders said in an Oct. 17 column in a
Northern Kentucky newspaper, “My opponent spent the bulk of her career as a Louisville
lawyer, rarely, if ever, practicing in the Sixth District.” Though Prospect is in the Louisville metropolitan
area, the Committee finds that a reasonable reader of such statements could incorrectly
conclude that Jones lives in Jefferson County.
The Jones complaint also
alleged that Sanders has “stated and implied that he would place Northern
Kentucky's interests above other geographic areas in ruling on cases.” Sanders wrote
in the newspaper column, “The question, for example, of whether state funds should
be used here to replace the Brent Spence Bridge, or on a competing
project for Louisville, could end up before the Court of Appeals.
How confident could one be in the fairness of its decision if Louisville had
three judges on the court and Northern Kentucky had only one? Northern
Kentuckians can best assure fair representation by electing a Northern Kentucky
judge.”
The Kentucky constitution
gives the court two judges from each of the seven districts, to ensure a diversity
of backgrounds. The Sanders campaign argues that is a form of representation. However,
the judges on appellate courts do not represent voters in the sense that
legislative and executive officials do, and the Committee finds that using the
word “representation” misrepresents the role of the courts and judges, which is
to rule on the law and facts, not to represent interests. This is an important
distinction to preserve in judicial campaigns.
Finally, the Committee
believes that if a judicial campaign has a problem with actions of a competing
campaign, and wants to complain to the Committee about it, such complaints should
be filed promptly. Last-minute charges and counter-charges do little to uphold
the integrity of the judiciary and the principle that judicial campaigns should
be different from campaigns for legislative and executive office.
The Committee is an
independent, non-governmental, non-profit, non-partisan group of interested
citizens from all over Kentucky. It includes people from both political parties
and various walks of life, including civic leaders, attorneys, non-lawyers and
retired judges. The Committee encourages judicial candidates to sign a pledge
to avoid false or misleading advertising and other campaign tactics that impugn
the integrity of the judicial system, the integrity of a candidate, or erode
public trust and confidence in the independence and impartiality of the
judiciary. For more information, see http://kyjccc.blogspot.com.
