tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67455524877249728112024-03-05T06:56:35.223-05:00Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee Inc.A private, nonprofit, nonpartisan group organized to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary in Kentucky judicial elections. The committee welcomes complaints about campaigns and issues public statements when warranted.Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-69397052573525753312024-02-24T10:41:00.005-05:002024-02-24T22:35:38.611-05:00Committee elects new officers, recognizes past service<p>Howard Roberts, founding dean and professor emeritus of the business college at the University of Pikeville, was elected chair of the Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee at the committee's annual meeting Feb. 24.</p><p>Roberts had been vice chair of the committee. Elected to succeed him in that position was Kathy Walker of Prestonsburg. Charles Boteler of Louisville and Al Cross of Frankfort were re-elected treasurer and secretary, respectively.</p><p>The committee lauded outgoing chair Anthony Wilhoit for his service, which began as founding chair in 2005. It also noted the recent death of another founding member, William Fortune, law professor at the University of Kentucky, and his contributions to the committee, the legal profession and the public.</p><p>Meeting via Zoom, the committee reviewed the current judicial races and agreed to send its usual letters to the candidates asking them to sign a pledge regarding campaign conduct.</p>Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-2154705712550551012022-10-31T13:32:00.002-04:002022-10-31T13:32:12.795-04:00Committee becomes more concerned about partisanship in state Supreme Court race that is constitutionally nonpartisan<div><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">For more information, contact Vice Chair Howard Roberts at <a href="mailto:hroberts@upike.edu">hroberts@upike.edu</a> or Secretary Al Cross at <a href="mailto:al.cross@uky.edu">al.cross@uky.edu</a>.</i></div><div><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></i></div>The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, which in August <a href="http://kyjccc.blogspot.com/2022/08/committee-makes-statement-about.html" target="_blank">warned</a> about partisanship in nonpartisan judicial elections, is freshly concerned because a candidate for a state Supreme Court seat has scheduled a day-long tour with the congressman whose district includes the entire Supreme Court district.<br /><br />State Rep. Joseph Fischer has <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=187370973801683&set=pb.100075863445122.-2207520000." target="_blank">announced</a> that he and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie will make four stops in the 6th Supreme Court district Thursday, Nov. 3. All but three of the counties that are entirely in Massie’s district are also in the district in which Fischer is running. That district comprises Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Carroll, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton, Oldham, Owen, Pendleton, Shelby and Trimble counties. <br /><br /><div>Fischer’s announcement includes his campaign logo that identifies him as “the conservative Republican.” That identification was one of the reasons that the Committee issued a statement Aug. 10 saying that while judicial candidates have the First Amendment right to publicize their political affiliations and their records in public service, Fischer was placing too much emphasis on his partisan affiliation. Now he is doubling down on that, publicizing an upcoming tour of the district with the Republican who has represented the area in Congress for nearly 10 years.<br /><br />We believe this further undermines the independence and integrity of the judiciary, which are essential elements of the American system of government. Unfortunately, many voters do not realize that Kentucky’s judicial elections are nonpartisan. When judicial campaigning becomes partisan, it can mislead voters into thinking they are voting in a partisan election. The objective of a nonpartisan election is to separate the judiciary from political entanglements. <br /><br />The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that was created to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary in Kentucky judicial elections. It was formed partly in response to court decisions that expanded the free-speech rights of judicial candidates, and the prospect of campaigns that would make nonpartisan judicial elections more like those for executive and legislative offices, which are mostly partisan. <br /><br />The committee has focused its public statements on campaigns that used false or misleading information to persuade voters, and believes its work has discouraged such campaigning. Now it voices concern about partisanship, out of fear that this trend will undermine the independence of the judiciary, and thus undermine its integrity. Citizens should be able to expect their disputes that end up in court will be decided by an impartial tribunal that is not influenced by political affiliations. <br /><br />One of our members, retired Supreme Court Justice Bill Cunningham, warned voters this summer that partisan campaigning for judicial seats “should put the voter on notice that there is a political group of people who have an interest in having one of their own as your judge.” We believe that when judicial candidates emphasize their affiliation with a political party, they erode long-held American principles of judicial independence and fairness. Politics is a necessary aspect of our system of government, but there’s a reason judicial elections are nonpartisan. Justice shouldn’t be political.<br /> </div>Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-35651046801902080582022-10-14T12:49:00.007-04:002022-10-15T00:11:12.279-04:00Committee makes statement regarding a complaint<i>The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee has issued the following statement.<br /></i><br />This matter came before the committee as the result of a letter from Joe Bilby, a candidate for Franklin County circuit judge. Mr. Bilby alleges that incumbent Judge Phillip Shepherd stated in an advertisement that he would not accept political contributions from any political party or any elected official or their political action committees. Mr. Bilby states that Shepherd has in fact accepted contributions from “numerous” politicians “who do not hold office at the moment” and “at least one political candidate who is running for a partisan office in 2022.”<br /><br />Judge Shepherd responds that he has received “over 1,100” donations to his campaign and that he works hard to identify contributions from political parties or elected officials and returns those, so identified, to the donors. He stated that he had overlooked the two contributions cited by Bilby, which were from “out of towners” who were not identified “in our review process.” He has now refunded those contributions. <br /><br />Under the circumstances, it does not appear that Judge Shepherd’s advertisement is either false or misleading. Therefore, all concur that no further action by the committee is warranted.<br /><br />Anthony M. Wilhoit<br />ChairAl Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-25521130054102120572022-08-22T22:44:00.003-04:002022-10-12T20:41:04.562-04:00Committee cautions candidates about misleading or false third-party posts on their social-media platforms<div><i>A printed copy of this statement was mailed to all judicial candidates.</i></div><div><br /></div>The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, which has called out false and misleading campaigning by judicial candidates since 2006, is cautioning this year’s candidates that they are ultimately responsible for material posted on their social-media pages and should remove information that is false or misleading. <br /><br />The committee is an independent, nonpartisan group of lawyers, retired judges and other citizens. It receives complaints and issues statements when warranted. Its concern about social media was prompted by a complaint from state Court of Appeals Judge Susanne Cetrulo against her opponent in the Nov. 8 election, Robert Winter. Both live in Edgewood, in Kenton County. <br /><br />Cetrulo complained to the committee about a comment on Winter’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.winter.7" target="_blank">personal page</a>, below a reposting from his campaign page about a campaign event. The commenter wrote, “This ruling by KY Appeals Court Judge Susanne Cetrulo cements her pro-abortion standing,” and linked to a decision made by a three-judge panel of the court, of which Cetrulo was a member. She said it was “a post that is completely false” and “I have had no such case and this is very hurtful to me personally and as a candidate.” The original post is dated July 22 and her complaint was received July 29. <br /><br /><a href="https://casetext.com/case/burch-v-lipscomb?fbclid=IwAR0xFTCYSaAgDrMWrzlDZIZwQmmMJX-L0H1nNbL4YLHG5TmaAzF2_X1vADI" target="_blank">The decision</a> cited by the commenter upheld an Anderson Family Court order supporting a parent’s desire to have his two children vaccinated over the objections of the other parent holding joint custody. The objecting parent cited her religious objection to vaccination on grounds that aborted fetal cells were used in the design and manufacture of the vaccines, while the other parent “believes the use of aborted fetal cells is so far removed from the process of developing vaccines that his concerns no longer exist” and wanted to follow the pediatrician’s advice and CDC guidelines that the children be vaccinated. The family court judge said the children’s health and welfare outweighed the religious belief of one parent. It made no findings of fact on the question of fetal cells, and the Court of Appeals panel said unanimously, “We cannot say the family court's factual findings lacked the support of substantial evidence, and we cannot conclude that it made any legal error in reaching its decision.” <br /><br />Regarding the abortion issue, Dr. Aleena Banerji, a member of the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Covid-19 Vaccine Task Force, <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthline.com%2Fhealth-news%2Fno-fetal-tissue-wasnt-used-to-create-the-jj-covid-19-vaccine%23What-are-fetal-cell-lines%2C-and-why-are-they-not-fetal-tissue%3F&data=05%7C01%7CAl.Cross%40uky.edu%7C56e1bfd3f69642669e0c08da8089d62a%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C0%7C637963627814390107%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XXVIWc0hJy7VtAdFjy0nfzzQ237xMOEoEQYC2XT9XMA%3D&reserved=0">told Healthline</a> that fetal cells were obtained from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s and have been grown as cell lines in laboratories for 30 to 40 years to be used in vaccine research because viruses need human cells in which to replicate. Banerji said neither Pfizer nor Moderna used fetal cell lines in development or production of its coronavirus vaccines, so there are no fetal cells in the vaccine, but the companies did use the cells to make sure the vaccine worked before beginning clinical trials in humans. She said the Johnson & Johnson one-dose vaccine used a fetal cell line in development and manufacturing. <br /><br />The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee believes that the characterization of the Court of Appeals ruling as a “pro-abortion decision” stretches the truth to the breaking point, and that the comment is at least misleading if not false. <br /><br />“A candidate for public office may not have a legal duty to monitor what others put on his or her personal or campaign pages; however, he or she certainly has an ethical duty to ensure that those pages are not used to propagate false or misleading information. Failure to do so renders the candidate an abettor in the propagation of such information,” said retired Court of Appeals Judge Anthony Wilhoit, chairman of the committee.<br /><br />We advised Mr. Winter of our opinion and gave him the opportunity to reply. He argued that he does not have the right to control comments on his Facebook pages, but he in fact does have that right, and the ability to do so; the cases he cited dealt with social-media accounts of public officials, not those of candidates. He also said that the state <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/kyrules/Document/NCA520430D36011E2814A9B24D7557A56?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1#co_anchor_I54FE7AC0CB6211ECBE9CE989D25FABC5" target="_blank">Canons of Judicial Conduct</a>, which apply to judicial candidates, “prevent me from discussing cases that could be brought before me.” This case has already been disposed of by the Court of Appeals, but Winter said that “similar facts or issues” may come before the court and it might “be required to review past cases, like this one, in making a decision.” He said any action by him regarding the comment would amount to making his own comment on an issue that might come before the court. We do not see it that way. We believe that removing the comment would simply be a tacit acknowledgement that its truth or falsity are in dispute, and another option would be to add a comment expressly saying so. <br /><br />Winter concluded, “Comments like this are made every day. There are many judicial decisions rendered on which reasonable minds may differ. Censoring statements we do not agree with is not the answer.” <br /><br />That comment illustrates the difficulties that social media pose for campaigns and voters. In the case of Facebook, users can set their pages to allow comments only from friends, or friends of friends, or those approved by the owner of the page – or by anyone, as Winter’s pages allow. If a comment remains on the page, or is not disputed, the owner of the page may be endorsing it by implication, or readers of it may make that inference. <br /><br /><a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/kyrules/Document/NCA520430D36011E2814A9B24D7557A56?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1#co_anchor_I54FE7AC0CB6211ECBE9CE989D25FABC5" target="_blank">The Kentucky Canons of Judicial Conduct</a> say that “a judge or judicial candidate shall not . . . knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false statement of material fact.” That is in Paragraph A of Canon 4.1. Paragraph B says, “A judge or judicial candidate shall take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the judge or judicial candidate, any activities prohibited under paragraph A.” In its comment on the canon, the Kentucky Supreme Court says, “When an independent third party has made unwarranted attacks on a candidate's opponent, the candidate may disavow the attacks, and request the third party to cease and desist.” <br /><br />We believe “reasonable measures” for judicial candidates include monitoring of their social media pages for material that is false or misleading, and removal of such material. Comments on social-media posts may be a matter of opinion, but leaving them on a page can be seen as an implicit endorsement of that opinion. We believe judicial candidates should be aware of these risks, and that is why we are issuing this statement.Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-80555181385348308032022-08-10T14:17:00.003-04:002022-08-10T15:49:21.923-04:00Committee makes statement about partisan campaigning in nonpartisan elections<p><i>For more information, contact Chair Anthony Wilhoit, 859-753-5599 or <a href="mailto:tony.wilhoit35@gmail.com">tony.wilhoit35@gmail.com</a> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, which has
monitored campaigns in nonpartisan judicial elections for 16 years, is
concerned that such elections are becoming too partisan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The committee is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization that was created to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary in Kentucky
judicial elections. It was formed partly in response to court decisions that
expanded the First Amendment freedoms of judicial candidates, and the prospect
of campaigns that made nonpartisan judicial elections more like those for
executive and legislative offices, which are partisan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The committee has focused its public statements on campaigns
that used false or misleading information to persuade voters, and believes its
work has discouraged such campaigning. Now it feels that judicial candidates who
emphasize their partisan affiliation are leading voters to think of judicial
elections as partisan, when they are not, and that this trend will undermine
the independence and thus the integrity of the judiciary. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 117 of the Kentucky Constitution provides for the
popular election of all Kentucky's state judges in non-partisan elections. Does
a nonpartisan election require nonpartisan campaigns? No. Federal courts have
ruled that nonpartisan elections cannot deny judicial candidates, or others, the
rights of free speech and association.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kentucky and most other states that select judges by popular
election attempt to create safeguards that protect the independence and
integrity of their judiciaries. A rule of the Supreme Court of Kentucky says “A
judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or
campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or
impartiality of the judiciary.” In its official comments on the rule, the Court
says, “The role of a judge is different from that of a legislator or executive
branch official, even when the judge is subject to public election. Campaigns
for judicial office should be conducted differently from campaigns for other
offices. . . . Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the
judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be
subject to political influence.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why should judicial elections be considered different from
other elections? The touchstone of the judiciary is its independence and
impartiality. Everyone in a free society should be able to expect their
disputes that end up in court to be decided by an impartial tribunal that is
not influenced by political affiliations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is natural for voters to want judges whose expressed views
or associations (political parties or special interest groups) indicate the
candidate is inclined to agree with the voter on how a particular issue should
be resolved. When judicial candidates emphasize their affiliation with a
political party, they erode long-held American principles of judicial
independence and fairness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>One example</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is why we are concerned that the campaign logo on the
website of state Rep. Joe Fischer for the Kentucky Supreme Court includes a
bottom line identifying him as “the conservative Republican” in the race; that
a June 29 post on his campaign Facebook page thanked the Oldham County
Republican Party for its “generous support;” and that on July 21, the page
shared a post by the Republican Party of Kentucky’s 4th District, quoting from a
public-radio news story:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“Joe Fischer, a Republican legislator known for his
anti-abortion and conservative stances, is taking on nine-year incumbent
Supreme Court Justice Michelle Keller in the race. Fischer, of Fort Thomas,
penned Kentucky’s ‘trigger law,’ which sought to automatically outlaw abortion
in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down <i>Roe v. Wade</i>. He also
sponsored an amendment to the Kentucky constitution that would ensure no
abortion rights are guaranteed in the state’s fundamental document. A former
prosecutor and appellate judge, Keller was appointed to the northern Kentucky
Supreme Court district in 2013 by Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear.” The story did
not mention that Keller is registered to vote as an independent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We believe candidates are responsible not only for their
social-media posts, but for comments that remain on those posts. On a July 28
post by the Fischer campaign there is a comment by Bernard Kunkel: “Joe Fischer
all the way. You must beat the pro-abort Andy Beshear loving Justice Michelle Keller.”
Kunkel provides no evidence for this assertion, but in a similar post on
another judicial campaign’s page, he cited a Court of Appeals decision that
upheld an Anderson Family Court ruling for a parent who wanted his children
vaccinated over the objections of the other parent, based on the use of aborted
fetal cells. That is the subject of a complaint pending before the committee,
which has advised the object of the complaint that it believes Kunkel’s
characterization is misleading if not inaccurate.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Judicial candidates have the First Amendment right to
publicize their political affiliations and their records in public service, and
some on our committee believe that unless the campaigning is misleading or
inaccurate, they should be able to exercise this right without questioning or
criticism from the committee – and that voters deserve to have information
about the candidates.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A majority of the committee believes the First Amendment
right to free speech is not compromised by speech questioning how that right is
exercised, and that in this case, Fischer places too much emphasis on his
partisan affiliation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While he has every right to do that, we believe campaigning
as the Republican candidate in a nonpartisan election undermines the
independence and integrity of the judiciary. Not only can this mislead voters
into thinking they are voting in a partisan election, it strengthens Fischer’s
ties to his party. The primary objective of any political party is to gain and
maintain power by electing its candidates. The objective of a nonpartisan
election is to separate the judiciary from such entanglements.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>A broader look</b></p><p class="MsoNormal">Looking more broadly at judicial elections in general, we
might do well to remember the example Abraham Lincoln set when considering whom
to appoint chief justice after the death of Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1864.
As biographer David Herbert Donald describes, "The President wanted to
name a man deeply versed in the law, rather than an ideologue or a
theorist," or as Lincoln put it, "The function of courts is to decide
cases, not principles." (<i>Lincoln</i>, p. 551.)</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An equally important consideration in judicial selection is
that the great majority of work that a judge does is not the stuff of
headlines. This is even more reason voters should rely less on the political
affiliations and political views of the prospective judge. Deciding issues of
probate, evidence, personal injury, procedure, family law, and many other areas
of law rarely will be affected by whether the judge is a Republican or a Democrat.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Far more important than party affiliation in judicial
selection are such considerations as knowledge of the law, life experience,
fairness, the ability to listen, the willingness to put aside possible
prejudice and bias, patience, humility, and a firm commitment to the rule of
law.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have no perfect way to select our judges. In Kentucky
voters have the challenge and responsibility to uphold the highest standards of
judicial selection. This responsibility is best served by informed and
objective determinations. We must not be sidetracked; We must keep our eyes on
the ball.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Background information about the Kentucky Judicial
Campaign Conduct Committee is at <a href="http://kyjccc.blogspot.com">kyjccc.blogspot.com</a>.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-40037052607532738052022-06-06T17:30:00.003-04:002022-06-06T17:31:45.574-04:00State judicial Ethics Committee issues opinion on contributions, endorsements, political parties and more<p>The Ethics Committee of the Kentucky Judiciary <a href="https://kycourts.gov/Courts/Judicial-Ethics/Judicial%20Ethics%20Opinions/JE_130.pdf" target="_blank">issued a formal opinion</a> April 8 to a judicial candidate who was not identified in the opinion but asked several questions of potential importance about judicial campaign contributions, endorsements, political parties and more. No one asked the state Supreme Court to review the opinion within 30 days after it was issued, and it stands as guidance for candidates. The questions, answers and opinion follow.</p><p><b><i>May a judicial campaign committee solicit contributions from
political action committees?<br /></i></b>The Judicial Ethics Committee is not aware of any statute prohibiting
a judicial candidate’s campaign committee from accepting money
from a political action committee. Case law indicates accepting
money from political action committees is permissible so long as
the contribution falls within statutory limits. <i>Dean v. Bondurant</i>, 193
S.W.3d 744, 751 (Ky. 2006) (citing <i>Adair v. State, Dept. of Educ.</i>, 474
Mich. 1027, 709 N.W.2d 567, 579-581 (2006), permitting PAC
contributions to judicial campaigns.) The Kentucky Revised Statutes
prohibit ANY candidate, judicial or otherwise, from making a promise
of anything of value or making any commitment to vote for or against
anything in return for campaign donations. KRS 121.055.</p><p><b><i>May a judicial campaign committee solicit endorsements from elected
partisan officials?<br /></i></b>No. New <a href="https://kycourts.gov/Courts/Judicial-Ethics/Documents/Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf" target="_blank">Code [of Judicial Conduct]</a>, Canon 4, Rule 4.1(A)(7); Judicial Ethics Opinion JE-66; <i>Winter v. Wolnitzek</i>, 834 F.3d 681, 691-692 (6th Cir. 2016), </p><p><i><b>May a judicial campaign committee advertise endorsements from
elected partisan officials?<br /></b></i>No. New Code, Canon 4, Rule 4.1(A)(7); Judicial Ethics Opinion
JE-66; <i>Winter v. Wolnitzek</i>, 834 F.3d 681, 691-692 (6th Cir. 2016).
Listing partisan officials as endorsers of a judicial candidate
renders hollow Kentucky’s Constitutional requirement of
nonpartisan campaigns. New Code, Canon 4, Rule 4.1,
Comment 10.</p><p><b><i>Is it permissible if the officials are listed as holding their partisan
office titles?<br /></i></b>No. New Code, Canon 4, Rule 4.1(A)(7); Judicial Ethics Opinion
JE-66, <i>Winter v. Wolnitzek</i>, 834 F.3d 681, 691-692 (U.S. 6th Circuit 2016).
Listing partisan officials as endorsers of a judicial candidate
renders hollow Kentucky’s Constitutional requirement of
nonpartisan campaigns. New Code, Canon 4, Rule 4.1, Comment 10.</p><p><b><i>Is it permissible to simply list the individuals' names so long as the
corresponding partisan office is not listed?</i></b><br />Kentucky’s Judicial elections are nonpartisan by Constitutional
mandate, Ky. Constitution Section 117, and previous Kentucky
authority has barred judicial candidates from listing current
partisan officials as endorsers of their campaign without
creating an exception for accepting an endorsement so long
the official’s title was not attached. Judicial Ethics Opinion JE-66.</p><p><b><i>May a judicial campaign committee’s advertising include symbols
closely associated with a political party in its advertising (i.e., Democratic donkey and Republican elephant)?<br /></i></b>No. Both federal and state case law have held previously that
a judicial candidate may “announce” during his or her campaign
his or her membership in a partisan political party. <i>Winter v.
Wolnitzek</i>, 834 F.3d 681, 688-689 (6th Cir. 2016); <i>Winter
v. Wolnitzek</i>, S.W.3d 768 (Ky. 2016). Nowhere in this case law,
however, does it state that a judicial candidate is free to “render
hollow” Kentucky’s Constitutional requirement that judicial
campaigns be nonpartisan. Ky. Const. Section 117; New Code,
Rule 4, Rule 4.1, Comment 10.</p><p><i><b>May a judicial candidate’s campaign committee advertise a
candidate’s policy positions without stating how the candidate
would commit to ruling if faced with the issue
on the bench?<br /></b></i>Yes. The United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that
a judicial candidate may announce his or her legal and political
views so long as that judicial candidate does not commit to ruling a
particular way. <i>Republican Party of Minnesota v. White</i>, 535 U.S.
923, 122 S.Ct. 1229, 152 L.Ed.2d 205 (2002). The New Code also
states this rule: Canon 4, Rule Rule 4.1(A)(13).</p><p><b><i>May a judicial campaign committee state that a former
legislator turned judicial candidate sponsored legislation on a
major policy during their tenure as a legislator?<br /></i></b>Once an individual becomes a judicial candidate, that individual is
bound by the same rules that bind all judicial candidates. SCR
3.130(8.2)(b). Without knowing what legislation the candidate
refers to, it is impossible to say more.</p><p><b><i>May a judicial campaign committee advise voters of the political
party the candidate belongs to in a mass advertisement such as on its
logos or through a direct statement by the candidate?<br /></i></b>Unless the Committee misunderstands this question, it has been
answered above. A judicial candidate may announce his political
affiliation but he or she may not do so in such a way to make
hollow Kentucky’s Constitutional requirement that judicial
elections be nonpartisan. Ky. Const. Section 117; New Code,
Canon 4, Rule 4.1, Comment 10.</p><p><b>OPINION</b></p><p>SECTION I.
The Judicial Ethics Committee is not aware of any statute that prohibits a judicial
candidate from accepting money from a political action committee. Additionally,
Kentucky Supreme Court case law indicates that accepting money from a political action committee is permissible so long as the contribution falls within statutory limits. <i>Dean v.
Bondurant</i>, 193 S.W.3d 744, 751 (Ky. 2006), (citing <i>Adair v. State Dept. of Educ.</i>, 474
Mich. 1027, 709 N.W.2d 567-581 (2006), permitting PAC contributions to Judicial
campaigns.) Soliciting money from any person, natural or otherwise, however, is prohibited if such support is obtained by promising anything of value or committing the
candidate to take any particular action once that candidate is elected. KRS 122.055.</p><p>SECTION II.
The New Code specifically prohibits a judicial candidate’s campaign committee from
seeking, accepting or using an endorsement from a partisan political official. Rule
4.1(A)(7); Judicial Ethics Opinion JE-66, Question 1; <i>Winter v. Wolnitzek</i>, 834 F.3d 681,
691-692 (6th Cir. 2016). As stated in JE-66, an endorsement from a public official for a
judicial candidate is essentially an endorsement from the judicial candidate for that public
official. The Sixth Circuit recognized in <i>Winter v. Wolnitzek</i> that endorsements are most
often made on a <i>quid pro quo</i> basis and Kentucky has a compelling interest in keeping its
judicial candidates from being unable to (and being perceived as being unable to) be fair
and impartial in a case that involved one official who had endorsed the judge and one
who had not. By keeping its judicial candidates “above the partisan fray” and out of the
world in which political favors are exchanged, Kentucky furthers its Constitutional
mandate of nonpartisan campaigns (Ky. Const. Section 117) in addition to its
compelling interest in preserving the integrity and impartiality as well as the appearance
of same in its judicial officers. Id.at 691-692. </p><p>SECTION III, A judicial candidate may not advertise the endorsement or endorsements made by
partisan public officials. The reason is that judicial elections are nonpartisan according to
Ky. Const. Section 117. The New Code, Canon 4, Rule 4.1, Comment 10, provides that the endorsement of a judicial candidate by a partisan public official is
almost the same as that judicial candidate campaigning as the official nominee of a
particular party. Kentucky case law holds that a judicial candidate may not campaign as
the official nominee of a partisan party. <i>Winter v. Wolnitzek</i>, 482 S.W.3d 768 (Ky.
2016). While a judicial candidate may “announce” his membership in a particular party,
<i>Republican Party of Minnesota v. White</i>, 535 U.S. 923, 122 S. Ct. 1229, 152 L.Ed.2d 205
(2002); <i>Winter v. Wolntizek</i>, 834 F.3d 681, 688-689 (6th Cir. 2016); judicial candidates
are not permitted to “render hollow” Kentucky’s Constitutional commitment to
nonpartisan judicial campaigns. Ky.Const. Section 117; New Code, Canon 4, Rule
4.1, Comment 10. Advertising the endorsement of a partisan public official
would interject an impermissible partisan character into a judicial election and cross this
line. It makes no difference if the public official is listed with the title of his office or
not. Past Kentucky authority has not made an exception on this basis. Judicial Ethics
Opinion JE-66, Question 1. Rather the distinction is made on whether the public official
is presently holding public office or not. Past public officials may be listed as endorsing a judicial candidate along with the title of their former office (Judicial Ethics Opinion JE-113). This same reasoning requires that a judicial candidate not employ partisan symbols in his
campaign literature such as the “elephant” for the Republican Party or the “donkey” for
the Democratic Party. Using such symbols interjects an impermissible partisan character
into a judicial campaign to the extent that it “renders hollow” the intended nonpartisan
rule. New Code, Canon 4, Rule 4.1, Comment 10. This is also why judicial
candidates are not permitted to include their partisan affiliation in mass mailings to
potential supporters.</p><p>SECTION IV. It is well established that a judicial candidate may announce his or her personal beliefs
regarding various legal and political issues so long as the candidate does not commit to
rule in a particular way should the question come before him or her in court. New Code,
Canon 4, Rule 4.1(A)(13). The United States Supreme Court imposed this requirement
in the case of <i>Republican Party of Minnesota v. White</i>, 535 U.S. 923, 122 S.Ct. 1229, 152
L.Ed.2d 205 (2002). To the extent a judicial candidate would be permitted to advertise as
part of his or her campaign that the candidate had supported a particular piece of
legislation is difficult to say without knowing what legislation the candidate refers to.
The fact that a judicial candidate, as a legislator, had supported certain legislation, would
be a matter of public record. At the same time, once an individual becomes a judicial
candidate, he or she is bound by the same rules that bind all judicial candidates. SCR
3.130(8.2)(b).</p><p>Please be aware that opinions issued by or on behalf of the Committee are restricted to
the content and the scope of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and legal authority interpreting
the Canons, and the fact situation on which an opinion is based may be affected by other
laws or regulations. Persons contacting the Judicial Ethics Committee are strongly
encouraged to seek counsel of their own choosing to determine any unintended legal
consequences of any opinion given by the Committee or some of its members.
Additionally, all judges and judicial candidates need to know that they have the right to
obtain review by the Kentucky Supreme Court of any formal opinion issued by the
Judicial Ethics Committee on motion filed in compliance with SCR 4.130(4), and all formal and informal opinions issued by the Judicial Ethics Committee are subject to
review by the Kentucky Supreme Court on its own motion at any time. SCR 4.130(4). </p><p>Very truly yours,<br />Irv Maze, Chair and Judge,
Court of Appeals<br />The Ethics Committee of the
Kentucky Judiciary</p><p>cc: The Honorable C. Rene’ Williams, Judge, Circuit Court; The Honorable Jeffrey Scott Lawless, Judge, District Court ;Donald H. Combs, Esq. and Vice Chair; Jean Collier, Executive Secretary</p>Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-15779743143483874112021-06-04T10:19:00.006-04:002021-06-04T10:19:36.817-04:00Committee welcomes Owensboro’s Martha Clark as newest memberOwensboro civic leader Martha Clark has been named to the Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, a private, nonprofit, non-partisan group that safeguards the integrity of the judiciary in Kentucky judicial elections.<br /><br /> “We are very happy to have someone of Martha Clark’s stature join us,” said Committee Chair Anthony Wilhoit of Versailles, former chief judge of the Kentucky Court of Appeals and executive director of the Legislative Ethics Commission. “With most Kentucky judgeships on the ballot next year, we are also happy to have all major areas of the state represented among our 15 members.” <br /><br /> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirN7KtwpmWXgAn2PteGKg0r9vzInYptPT-DkuZ9hWF1IxsM9XVUbRzdNqZ2ZezH-FO9uPQ2cEcpB2cv8D1EQx_Ba5uAd4FLaS1La18e4oMF59thVaiO483_szpvJIGZCNY4QaOn-j2HXQd/s705/MarthaClarkKET.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="705" data-original-width="558" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirN7KtwpmWXgAn2PteGKg0r9vzInYptPT-DkuZ9hWF1IxsM9XVUbRzdNqZ2ZezH-FO9uPQ2cEcpB2cv8D1EQx_Ba5uAd4FLaS1La18e4oMF59thVaiO483_szpvJIGZCNY4QaOn-j2HXQd/w158-h200/MarthaClarkKET.png" width="158" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Martha Clark</i></td></tr></tbody></table>Clark said, “I’m proud to assist the committee in furthering its goal of maintaining the independence and integrity of Kentucky’s justice system.” <br /><br /> Clark, a retired CPA, is active in many civic organizations. She is a member of the Kentucky Humanities Council and the Owensboro Symphony board, and co-founded Impact 100 Owensboro, a group that encourages women to become involved and remain involved in local philanthropy. It has raised $3 million for Owensboro-area nonprofits. She recently retired as administrator of the John B. and Brownie Young Memorial Scholarship. <br /><br /> The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee was formed in 2005 because judges, lawyers and citizens had become concerned that judicial elections were becoming too much like executive and legislative elections, eroding the independence, image and integrity of the judiciary. The committee educates citizens about the nature of judicial offices and elections, encourages judicial candidates to run dignified campaigns and avoid making specific promises about how they might rule on any matter; and monitors judicial races, considers complaints of unethical campaigning and makes public statements when warranted. <br /><br />The committee invites candidates to sign a pledge “to disavow 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.” The committee then publicizes which candidates have signed the pledge, and, if it issues a statement criticizing campaigning by a candidate who has signed the pledge, that is noted. <br /><br />The committee has a self-perpetuating board and has made an effort to include members from various walks of life and political viewpoints, including civic leaders, attorneys, non-lawyers and retired judges. Its bylaws require that no fewer than 30 percent nor more than 60 percent of the members be practicing members of the Kentucky bar. <br /><br />In addition to Clark and Wilhoit, the committee members are Howard Roberts, Pikeville, vice chair; Al Cross, Frankfort, secretary; Charles Boteler, Louisville, treasurer; Jane H. Baker, Glasgow; Stephen C. Cawood, Pineville; Bill Cunningham, Kuttawa; Jon Fleischaker, Louisville; William Fortune, Lexington; Kate Hendrickson, Maysville; Marcia Milby Ridings, London; Cecile Schubert, Richmond; Kathy Walker, Prestonsburg; and Elaine Wilson, Somerset.Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-80428186525009459692020-10-04T13:53:00.011-04:002020-10-04T15:35:21.027-04:00Candidates who have signed committee's agreement<p>Following is a list of candidates in the 2020 elections who signed the Committee's pledge to conduct their campaigns with dignity and integrity, in accordance with the state Code of Judicial Conduct, and to disavow advertising with false or misleading information or accusations that impugn the integrity of the judicial system or the integrity of a candidate, or that erode public trust and confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. A full list of candidates for judgeships is available at <a href="https://web.sos.ky.gov/electionmall/default.aspx">https://web.sos.ky.gov/electionmall/default.aspx</a>. Primary elections for judgeships reduce the number of candidates to two for the general election.</p><p><b>Candidate, address and judgeship sought</b></p><p>Chris Harris, Forest Hills, justice, Supreme Court, 7th District</p><p>Jenny Marie Hines, Paducah, judge, Court of Appeals, 1st District</p><p>J. Chris McNeill, Paducah, judge, Court of Appeals, 1st District</p><p>Elizabeth Davis, Mount Sterling, circuit judge, 21st Circuit</p><p>Teresa Whitaker, Science Hill, circuit judge, 28th Circuit</p><p>Catherine S. Fuller, Benton, family court judge, 42nd Circuit</p><p>CANDIDATES DEFEATED IN PRIMARY<br />Jerry J. Cox, Mount Vernon, circuit judge, 28th Circuit<br />Daryl K. Day, Stanford, circuit judge, 28th Circuit<br />Ashton McKenzie, Salt Lick, judge, 21st Circuit<br />Stephen E. Neal, Mount Sterling, judge, 21st Circuit<br />C. Rene' Williams, Dixon, judge, Court of Appeals, 1st District</p>Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-65711595781354361642019-08-15T15:26:00.003-04:002019-08-15T15:27:30.283-04:00Committee asks 13 judicial candidates in six contested races on Nov. 5 ballot to sign fair-campaign pledge<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee is mailing letters to the 13 candidates in contested races for nonpartisan judicial office in the Nov. 5 election, asking that they sign an agreement with the committee pledging to "conduct my campaign with dignity and integrity and in accordance with the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct. I further agree to disavow advertisements that use false or misleading information and/or accusations to 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." The committee will post a list of those who have signed the pledge.<br />
<br />
<i>The contested races are:</i><br />
Supreme Court (1st District): Shea Nickell vs. Whitney Westerfield <br />
Court of Appeals (3rd District): Jacqueline Caldwell vs. Michael Caperton<br />
<div>
7th Circuit Judge (Logan and Todd counties): Joe Hendricks vs. Joe Ross <br />
22nd Circuit Judge (4th Division, Fayette County): Julie Muth Goodman vs. John Reynolds <br />
35th Circuit Judge Family Court (Pike County): Kent Varney vs. Justin Cory Hamilton<br />
<div>
46th District Judge (Breckinridge, Grayson, Meade): Bradley Butler, Zanda Myers and Beth Ratley<br />
<div>
<br />
<i>The letter to each candidate reads:</i><br />
<br />
The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee is a private, non-partisan, non-governmental group created in 2005 to promote judicial elections that support a fair and independent Kentucky judiciary. The KJCCC has helped keep most Kentucky judicial campaigns fair and dignified for the last 14 years. We are not a government agency and have no power to discipline candidates who violate the Code of Judicial Conduct (SCR 4.300).<br />
<br />
In January 2018, the Supreme Court of Kentucky amended the Code. New Canon 4 replaced old Canon 5, and Rule 4.1 was issued to conform to the requirements of <i>Winter v. Wolnitzek</i>, 186 F.Supp. 3d 673 (E.D.Ky. 2016). The rule describes what is, and is not, permitted in Kentucky judicial campaigns under the First Amendment, and the code’s preamble notes that judicial candidates are also governed by “general ethical standards.” The KJCCC’s standards reflect that fact, and are intended to keep nonpartisan judicial campaigns from becoming like partisan campaigns for executive or legislative office. We believe that has served the state and its judiciary well and is a hallmark of our system’s excellence.<br />
<br />
The KJCCC asks that you campaign in a fair and dignified manner and that you refrain from:<br />
<br />
1) making false or misleading statements;<br />
2) making statements that indicate how you would rule in a pending case or type of case, or call into question the obligation to decide matters impartially and without pre-judgment;<br />
3) campaigning as if the election is a partisan election. Judicial elections in Kentucky are non-partisan for a reason – to assure the public that the candidate will, if elected, treat everyone the same without regard to political affiliation. “The interest is not in preventing bias against parties; the interest is in preventing judges from being too involved in political machines.” (<i>Winter v. Wolnitzek</i>, p. 28; Rule 4.1 governs political activity.)<br />
4) making personal attacks on an opponent. Judicial elections should be above such tactics, and, to the credit of judicial candidates over the years, we’ve seen very few attack ads. We also ask that you disavow personal, misleading of false attacks made by other parties.<br />
<br />
We are enclosing a campaign pledge and the procedures by which complaints can be made. We will investigate complaints promptly and speak out (by press release or letter) to respond to what we believe is unfair campaigning. Send an email to KJCCC Secretary Al Cross and me (addresses above) if you believe you have been the victim of unfair campaigning. We have no power to discipline, only the power of persuasion.<br />
<br />
We offer you our best wishes for a campaign that will enhance the reputation of the Court of Justice.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Cecile Schubert<br />
Vice Chair and acting Chair</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-25953093991892437182019-02-02T10:23:00.000-05:002019-08-15T15:17:01.695-04:00Committee elects Noe chair, welcomes Cunningham<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, a nonprofit, non-stock corporation, conducted its annual meeting on Jan. 19 in Midway. It elected Spencer Noe of Lexington chair and president, re-elected other officers, and extended an invitation to retiring Supreme Court Justice Bill Cunningham of Kuttawa to join the committee. He accepted. Other committee members are listed <a href="https://kyjccc.blogspot.com/p/committee-membership.html">here</a>.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>UPDATE:</i> Noe has resigned from the committee, citing health reasons; Vice Chair Cecile Schubert is acting chair.</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-82542847286150482982018-10-12T18:27:00.006-04:002018-10-12T18:28:57.838-04:00Committee tells candidates they should consciously avoid campaigning that may mislead voters<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The committee received a complaint in early October from a judicial candidate, alleging misleading campaigning by the other candidate in the race.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One concern expressed was that the other candidate's claim of a certain amount of “legal
experience” included time in law-related activities before admission to the bar. The other concern was that the lack of the words “vote”
or “elect” on some campaign materials with the title of the office being sought may create the incorrect impression that the candidate already holds that office.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some committee members were concerned about one issue, others were concerned about the other, and some were concerned about both, but there was no
overall consensus among the committee members. The committee did not feel that the matter called for a press release, but told the candidates in a letter that its main concern is that
judicial candidates consciously avoid campaigning that may mislead voters.</div>
</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-17967329882996410312018-04-26T23:25:00.000-04:002018-05-19T18:27:14.892-04:00Most judicial candidates on May 22 primary ballots sign committee's proffered pledge to campaign fairly<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Each election year the Committee asks judicial candidates to sign a pledge that they will conduct their campaigns in accordance with the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct, and disavow advertising that uses false or misleading information that impugns the integrity of a candidate or the judicial system, or that erodes public trust and confident in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.<br />
<br />
Most of the candidates who are opposed in the May 22 primary have signed the pledge. Primaries are held in judicial races with three or more candidates, sending the top two vote-getters to the Nov. 6 general election. <b>The primary-ballot candidates signing the pledge are listed below, <i>with the number of candidates in the race if more than three</i></b>. This list has been updated since the original April 26 posting, and will continue to be updated if more candidates on primary ballots submit agreements. Candidates who do NOT appear on the primary ballot are not listed; this list will be updated for the general election.<br />
<br />
<b>JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT</b>, <a href="http://courts.ky.gov/resources/publicationsresources/Publications/P109KYSCCOAJudicialDistrictsMapLETTER_211.pdf">Third District</a><br />
Debra Hembree Lambert, Burnside<br />
David Tapp, Somerset<br />
<b>JUDGE OF THE COURT of APPEALS</b>, <a href="http://courts.ky.gov/resources/publicationsresources/Publications/P109KYSCCOAJudicialDistrictsMapLETTER_211.pdf">Seventh District</a>, unexpired term (six candidates)<br />
David Barber, Morehead<br />
Kevin Sinnette, Ashland<br />
Gene Smallwood, Whitesburg<br />
Larry Thompson, Pikeville<br />
<b>CIRCUIT JUDGE, Family Court</b>, unexpired term, 16th Circuit, 5th Division<br />
Pete Roush, Covington<br />
Terri King Schoborg, Covington<br />
<b>CIRCUIT JUDGE, Family Court</b>, unexpired term, 22nd Circuit, 1st Division (four candidates)<br />
Gregory Napier, Lexington<br />
Nam Nguyen, Lexington<br />
Eileen O'Brien, Lexington<br />
<b>CIRCUIT JUDGE, Family Court</b>, unexpired term, 30th Circuit, 4th Division (four candidates)<br />
Bryan Gatewood, Fisherville<br />
Lauren Adams Ogden, Louisville<br />
Shelley Santry, Louisville<br />
<b>DISTRICT JUDGE</b><br />
<b>6th District, 3rd Division</b><br />
Daniel M. "Nick" Burlew, Owensboro<br />
Misty Miller, Maceo<br />
<b>11th District, 2nd Division </b>(five candidates)<br />
Jude Hagan, Lebanon<br />
Dawn McCauley, Lebanon<br />
Jeremy Ancil Wood, Campbellsville<br />
<b>30th District, 3rd Division</b><br />
Tracy Davis, Louisville<br />
Jim Green, Prospect<br />
<b>30th District, 6th Division</b><br />
Sean Delahanty, Louisville<br />
Alex Gaddis, Louisville<br />
<b>30th District, 9th Division </b>(four candidates)<br />
Danny Alvarez, Louisville<br />
Andre Bergeron, Louisville<br />
Karen Faulkner, Louisville<br />
<b>33rd District </b>(six candidates)<br />
B. Cody Goehring, Hazard<br />
Becky Williams Patterson, Hazard<br />
Teresa Combs Reed, Hazard<br />
Sheila Clemons Stoffel, Hazard<br />
<b>35th District, 1st Division</b> (four candidates)<br />
Joe Jett Friend, Pikeville<br />
Amber Hunt Sisco, Pikeville<br />
Robert F. Wright, Pikeville<br />
<b>35th District, 2nd Division</b> (five candidates)<br />
<div>
Tommy Chamberlin, Pikeville</div>
<div>
Andrew Tyler Friend, Pikeville</div>
<div>
Justin Cory Hamilton, Pikeville</div>
<div>
<b>39th District</b></div>
<div>
Billy Oliver, Campton</div>
<div>
Jarett Rose, Stanton</div>
<div>
<b>51st District, 2nd Division</b> (four candidates)</div>
<div>
David Curlin, Henderson</div>
<div>
Leslie Newman, Henderson</div>
<div>
Greg Sutton, Henderson</div>
<div>
<b>54th District, Division 2</b></div>
<div>
Angela Greene, Union</div>
<div>
Marcia Thomas, Petersburg</div>
</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-13662910817465216132018-04-25T11:04:00.001-04:002018-04-26T22:11:18.288-04:00Committee receives complaint, gets response and prompt correction from target of complaint <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The committee
received a complaint from a judicial candidate alleging that another candidate in a race misrepresented the latter candidate’s qualifications by describing the race as if the complainant was not in it. The candidate who was the object of the complaint, soon after being notified of the complaint, acknowledged his error and corrected his online postings. Both candidates were among those who had already signed an agreement with the committee pledging to avoid misleading voters.</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-42506205811222637732018-02-19T12:15:00.001-05:002018-02-19T12:25:23.532-05:00Committee reorganizes for 2018, which may be busy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee has elected new officers for 2018, a year that could be a busy one for the committee, with more than 200 candidates for Kentucky judgeships.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFZnCDb4m9qW-FB7supr6pGPHAGSeiedjw4bN73X-56MPYiFZXlrppzJCuf7UZLza-l2oxS1zZhMl-WIJtU_rAe7dJhTkfcH6pUK7N5NYOie8bEeZmUU1d3eO8qdcDqbHyPH6YmZ_8iZyL/s1600/TonyWilhoit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="297" data-original-width="216" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFZnCDb4m9qW-FB7supr6pGPHAGSeiedjw4bN73X-56MPYiFZXlrppzJCuf7UZLza-l2oxS1zZhMl-WIJtU_rAe7dJhTkfcH6pUK7N5NYOie8bEeZmUU1d3eO8qdcDqbHyPH6YmZ_8iZyL/s200/TonyWilhoit.jpg" width="108" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Judge Anthony Wilhoit</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The new chair and president of the Committee is former Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Anthony Wilhoit, who has served as vice chair and chair in the past. He succeeds Kate Hendrickson of Maysville, who remains on the Committee. Cecile Schubert of Richmond and Al Cross of Frankfort were re-elected vice chair and secretary, respectively. Retired Judge Charles Boteler, a former chair who now lives in Louisville, was elected treasurer. He succeeds Jon Fleischaker of Louisivlle, who remains on the Committee.<br />
<br />
Following an internal review, the committee will soon send letters to judicial candidates asking them to sign an agreement regarding their campaign activities, as it has in the past. Names of those signing the agreement will be publicized. For judgeships with more than two candidates, primary elections on May 22 will reduce the fields to the top two vote-getters.<br />
<br />
For a list of Kentucky judicial candidate filings, <a href="http://www.uky.edu/comminfostudies/irjci/JudicialCandidates2018.xlsx">click here</a>. This list includes candidates for commonwealth's attorney in multi-county districts, who file with the secretary of state. Those races are partisan and not part of the committee's purview; all races for judgeships are nonpartisan, making them fundamentally different from elections for legislative and executive positions.</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-68490236026093774312016-10-31T10:51:00.003-04:002016-10-31T10:55:33.662-04:00Judicial candidates sign campaign pledges<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Each year judicial elections are held, the Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee asks candidates to sign a pledge that they will conduct their campaigns in accordance with the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct, disavow advertising that uses false or misleading information that impugns the integrity of a candidate or the judicial system, or that erodes public trust and confident in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.<br />
<br />
In alphabetical order, these are the candidates who signed the pledge this year, and the jurisdictions in which they are running:<br />
<br />
Gina Kay Calvert, Louisville, 30th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
John A. Cook, Louisville, 30th Judicial District<br />
Stephen C. Emery, Westport, 12th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
Bob Heleringer, Louisville, 30th Judicial District<br />
Deanna Henschel, Paducah, 2nd Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
Susan Montalvo Gesser, Owensboro, 6th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
Julie Hawes Gordon, Owensboro, 6th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
Andrea Janovic, Fort Thomas, 17th Judicial District<br />
James Lesousky Jr., Louisville, 30th Judicial District<br />
Danny Lee Lunsford Jr., Harlan, 26th Judicial District<br />
Anita Mindrup-Ivie, Henderson, 51st Judicial District<br />
Lauren Adams Ogden, 30th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
Michael Pate, La Grange, 12th Judicial Circuit<br />
John Gabriel Pendleton, Glasgow, 43rd Judicial District<br />
Angela Thompson, Owensboro, 6th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
William Tingley, Louisville, 30th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
Laurance B. Van Meter, Lexington, Supreme Court (5th District)<br />
Abby Voelter, Cold Spring, 17th Judicial District<br />
Kimberly Blair Walson, Winchester, 25th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)<br />
Stephanie C. Willis, Louisville, 30th Judicial District<br />
<br />
For lists of all candidates for each office, go to <a href="http://apps.sos.ky.gov/elections/candidatefilings/statewide">http://apps.sos.ky.gov/elections/candidatefilings/statewide</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-61849887229718631502016-10-19T08:27:00.004-04:002016-10-19T08:28:09.914-04:00Judicial elections are different; candidates shouldn’t compromise themselves, and shouldn’t mislead voters<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">By Charles Boteler</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; text-align: left;">, Chair, Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee Inc.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">In
elections by districts across the state, Kentuckians will select in November
six judges for family court, three for circuit court, five district court
judges, and one justice for the Kentucky Supreme Court. We have selected our
state judges in Kentucky by popular election since 1850. Since 1976 we have
elected judges in non-partisan elections.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Judicial
elections present problems that are not common in elections for the legislative
and executive branches of government. Candidates for legislator, mayor,
governor, or president typically campaign on how they will address specific
issues. Campaign platforms in these races are the norm and entirely proper.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Issue-oriented
campaigns for judicial office, however, create troublesome possibilities. For
instance, judicial independence requires that a judge be able to approach each
case without regard to partisan connections, and not limited to pre-determined
opinions that tend to foreclose a full consideration of all the issues and
views that may be present in a real case that comes before a judge for
adjudication. In short, a judge should be guided only by a reasoned application
of the law to the facts, and a determination that is made only when the case is
heard and decided.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">One
attempt to counter the problem created by popular judicial elections has been
the use of ethics codes that limited the speech that judicial candidates could
use. Increasingly, such codes have been determined to conflict with the free-speech
clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In response to a case
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2002, a group of Kentucky
citizens incorporated the Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee in 2005.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The
KJCCC is a non-partisan, non-governmental group of citizens from across the
Commonwealth whose mission is to ensure that judicial campaigns in Kentucky
promote an independent and impartial judiciary. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Judicial
campaign speech has become increasingly untethered to state-enforced campaign-conduct
codes. Most recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed a
decision by Judge Amal Thapar of the Eastern District of Kentucky, striking
down additional portions of Kentucky’s judicial campaign restrictions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Though
more free speech in judicial elections may be healthy in many respects, the
tension between popular election and judicial independence and impartiality is
left unresolved. The KJCCC believes that judicial candidates can make
statements in their campaigns that may limit their independence and may impact
their ability to decide cases properly and fairly. Likewise, misleading,
unfair, and undignified campaigning, though constitutionally permissible as
free speech, may still impair the independence, competence, and integrity of
Kentucky’s judicial branch.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Therefore,
the KJCCC continues to ask judicial candidates to refrain from waging campaigns
that utilize unfair, misleading, and excessively partisan tactics. We will
continue to comment if a judicial candidate campaigns in such a way, because we
believe such campaigns harm our legal system and society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">In
addition, we ask voters to exercise their utmost care and good judgment to make
sure that Kentucky selects a talented and independent judiciary. Most judicial
decision-making does not involve the hot button, ideological disputes that
often divide society. What a judicial candidate might opine about abortion,
same sex marriage, or textualism in constitutional interpretation will have
little, if any, relevance to the day-to-day work of a Kentucky judge. A
judicial candidate’s knowledge of various areas of law, the willingness to
consider all positions with an open mind, a commitment to be an impartial
umpire; these are the qualities we need in our judges.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Democracy
requires the efforts of all citizens. Judicial candidates committed to
upholding high standards of independence, fairness, and integrity will serve us
well. Likewise, Kentucky voters must demand high standards in their judicial
candidates. Together we can ensure that the Commonwealth has the kind of
judiciary we all deserve.<o:p></o:p></span>
</div>
</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-67843996452676043852016-09-08T11:14:00.001-04:002016-09-08T11:14:19.438-04:00Committee asks judge to stop using campaign materials referring to her as 'the governor's choice'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5YtImkRaB8LkJWjNXZOPncojI2A48yOYx-m4nviSiUgcjkDiKTXIbaNmUYSU1wJ0eSd5xjc6fQVSZCPgTI_G1LUapWJeAdVYGJR5q7_U4E5qiEBfc50_jiqnx1gsnMXMfAjrDF5vn6zV1/s1600/JCCCJudgeGoodwinletter.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="702" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5YtImkRaB8LkJWjNXZOPncojI2A48yOYx-m4nviSiUgcjkDiKTXIbaNmUYSU1wJ0eSd5xjc6fQVSZCPgTI_G1LUapWJeAdVYGJR5q7_U4E5qiEBfc50_jiqnx1gsnMXMfAjrDF5vn6zV1/s640/JCCCJudgeGoodwinletter.jpeg" width="540" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-39454320384011439222015-10-23T20:10:00.000-04:002016-02-06T12:13:03.824-05:00Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee finds ad by Kentucky Supreme Court candidate falsely misrepresents the role of a judge, and his opponent made inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">A claim by Letcher Circuit
Judge Sam Wright in his campaign for the Kentucky Supreme Court is false and
misrepresents the role of a judge or justice, the Kentucky Judicial Campaign
Conduct Committee has found.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">On a counter-complaint by
Judge Wright, the committee found that his opponent, Court of Appeals Judge
Janet Stumbo, made an inaccurate claim about her length of service, and that
her campaign made a claim about Wright’s fund-raising that the committee was
unable to substantiate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">The first complaint, by
Stumbo’s campaign, was about a Wright commercial saying Stumbo “sided with
criminals nearly 60 percent of the time” when she was on the Supreme Court. Wright
told the committee that the figure “comes from the fact that Janet Stumbo voted
in favor of the convicted criminal defendant in 59% of the published cases in
which she voted during the last five years she was a justice of the Kentucky
Supreme Court. The published cases were
used because those are the ones in which the court is establishing law or
making precedent.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">In a letter to Wright, the
committee said, “The ad fails to consider the number of unpublished criminal
cases in which Janet Stumbo would have participated as a justice on the Supreme
Court. The 60 percent figure may be significantly different if all criminal
cases were considered.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Beyond the question of
numbers, the committee told Wright that judges and justices are supposed “to
base decisions on the law and to not take sides. Many convictions are
reversed due to procedural, statutory or constitutional issues, and these
decisions should not be represented as ‘siding with criminals.’ To say
otherwise is to purposely mislead the electorate on the role of a judge or
justice.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">The committee told Wright, “Our
committee has determined in previous elections for the Kentucky Supreme Court
that similar campaign ads making this type of allegation were improper, and we
do so again. Your ad undermines the high standards by which judicial campaigns
should be conducted.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">The committee reminded
Wright, and reminds voters, that Kentucky’s nonpartisan judicial elections are
different from those for executive or legislative offices. The committee
believes campaigns for judicial office should uphold the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The committee asked Wright to “cease the use of
this ad or similar advertising making this claim and refrain from using it in
the remainder of the campaign.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">After being notified of the
complaint against him, Wright filed two complaints against Stumbo, making
several allegations. The committee concluded that two were worthy of
examination: Stumbo’s claim in an ad that she has 25 years of experience as an
appellate-court judge, “more than any other person in the history of this
commonwealth,” and her campaign’s May 7 claim on its Facebook page that he was
raising money by calling prospects and handing the phone to another person who
requested a contribution to Wright’s campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">The committee found that
Justice Donald Wintersheimer served on the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
for more than 29 years, more than Stumbo. It asked the Stumbo campaign for the
source of its fund-raising allegation, and the campaign provided a name.
However, that person did not substantiate the claim made by the campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">The Kentucky Judicial
Campaign Conduct Committee is an independent, non-governmental, non-partisan
group of interested citizens from all over Kentucky, with a mix of lawyers, non-lawyers,
Democrats, Republicans and independents. Each year there is a judicial
election, the committee offers candidates an agreement in which they pledge to
run fair and dignified campaigns, and disavow false or misleading ads 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.” Only two of the 26 candidates
seeking judicial office in Kentucky this fall did not sign the agreement: Ron
Schwoeppe, who is running for a district judgeship in Louisville, and Judge Sam
Wright.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Members of the committee are
retired circuit judge Charles Boteler, Owensboro; retired Court of Appeals judge
Tony Wilhoit, Versailles; Al Cross, Frankfort, secretary; Jon Fleischaker,
Louisville, secretary; Jane Baker, Glasgow; Steve Cawood, Pineville; William
Fortune, Lexington; Kate Hendrickson, Maysville; Spencer Noe, Lexington; Dennis
Null, Mayfield; Marcia Milby Ridings, London; Howard Roberts, Pikeville; Bill
Robinson, Covington; Cecile Schubert, Richmond; Kathy Walker, Paintsville; and
Elaine Wilson, Somerset.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-91126148740415028022015-10-11T11:59:00.000-04:002016-02-06T12:00:41.446-05:00Candidates pledge to run dignified judicial campaigns<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Kentucky
Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee is pleased to announce that</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
24 of the 26 candidates seeking office in the judicial
elections on Nov. 3 have signed a pledge to run fair and dignified
campaigns. They have signed a pledge to
disavow 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.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Elections will
be held for the state Supreme Court seat from most of Eastern Kentucky, a
circuit judgeship in Calloway and Marshall counties, and a district judgeship
in Jefferson County.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Candidates may
sign the agreement at any time. Those who have signed are:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>7<sup>th</sup>
Supreme Court District</b> (Boyd, Breathitt, Carter, Elliott, Floyd, Greenup, Harlan,
Johnson, Knott, Lawrence, Letcher, Magoffin, Martin, Menifee, Montgomery,
Morgan, Owsley, Perry, Pike, Powell, Rowan, and Wolfe counties): <b>Janet Stumbo</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>42<sup>nd</sup>
Judicial Circuit: Jeff Edwards, Randall Hutchens and Jamie Jameson<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>30<sup>th</sup>
Judicial District, Division 4: <o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<b>Daniel M. Alvarez</b><br />
<div class="WordSection3">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Judith Bartholomew<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Andre L. Bergeron<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Sandy Berman<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Josephine L. Buckner<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Dennis C. Burke<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Dawn Elliot<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>R. A. Florio<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>James M. Green<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Bob Heleringer<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="letter-spacing: -.4pt;">L. J. (Todd) Hollenbach IV<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Danny Karem<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Ellie Garcia
Kerstetter<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Michael Leibson<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Ruth Lerner<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Chuck Rogers<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>C. Fred Partin<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>J. P. Ward<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Erin White<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Benjamin F. Wyman<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span></b>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Although
Canon 5 of the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct sets a baseline for campaign
conduct, the Committee believes candidates should strive to a level of conduct
that reflects the dignity of the judicial office.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Many of
the tactics in partisan elections are inappropriate in non-partisan judicial
campaigns and undermine the integrity of the judicial system. Kentucky’s courts
rely on public confidence and support to maintain their legitimacy, and
misleading campaigning destroys the basis of the judicial authority that helps
hold our society together.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
nonpartisan, nonprofit Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee has no
official authority, but each election year it offers a campaign agreement for
all judicial candidates to sign. It may also make a public statement when it
believes a candidate is campaigning inappropriately.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
agreement’s preface says, “The actions of candidates for judicial office affect
the integrity and independence of our judicial system, reflecting on both the
Kentucky judicial system and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Therefore, it is
important that judicial election campaigns be conducted in such a way that
enhances the candidate’s reputation, brings credit to the individual, and
reflects the dignity and integrity of judicial office and the independence of
the judiciary.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By
signing the pledge, candidates show a commitment to the decorum of the office they
wish to hold. The Committee hopes that this agreement will encourage
appropriate campaign practices that are more appealing and engaging to voters
throughout the Commonwealth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyone
who believes a judicial candidate is not campaigning appropriately may send the
Committee a complaint in writing, preferably by email to Committee Chair
Charles Boteler at <a href="mailto:charlesboteler@gmail.com">charlesboteler@gmail.com</a>.
The Committee discourages anonymous complaints and is much less likely to act
on such complaints.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-73005693185065398492014-11-01T09:04:00.001-04:002014-11-01T21:56:52.995-04:00Committee condemns campaign tactics of both candidates in Court of Appeals race<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">The Kentucky Judicial
Campaign Conduct Committee is condemning the campaign tactics of both candidates
for a seat on the state Court of Appeals.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">The committee also finds that
the challenger in the 6<sup>th</sup> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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, “</span><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">My opponent spent the bulk of her career as a Louisville
lawyer, rarely, if ever, practicing in the Sixth District.</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">” 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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, “</span><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">The question, for example, of whether state funds should
be used <i>here</i> to replace the Brent Spence Bridge, or on a competing
project for <i>Louisville</i>, <i>could</i> 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.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">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 <a href="http://kjccc.blogspot.com/">http://kyjccc.blogspot.com</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-38022482242197756252014-10-31T09:45:00.001-04:002014-10-31T09:45:15.575-04:00Committee asks Court of Appeals candidate to stop advertising that it finds misleading<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee has asked Kent Varney, a candidate for the state Court of Appeals, to stop using advertising that claims his opponent, Judge Janet Stumbo, has "sided with criminals 59 percent of the time."<br />
<br />
In a letter to Varney, copied to the Stumbo campaign, the committee said, "The KJCCC finds that this
assertion misrepresents the role of a judge or justice, which is to base
decisions on the law and not take sides. Also, no context for the assertion is
provided, so we find that the ad is misleading. Our committee determined in an election for the
Kentucky Supreme Court in 2012 that a campaign ad making this type of
allegation was improper, and we do so again. We conclude that this portion of
your ad is misleading and undermines the high standards by which judicial
campaigns should be conducted."<br />
<br />
The Floyd County Times published a story on the matter, which can be read <a href="http://www.floydcountytimes.com/article/20141030/news/310309964">here</a>. For a copy of the letter, click <a href="http://www.uky.edu/comminfostudies/irjci/JCCCtoVarney.pdf">here</a>.</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-47173891637468074192014-08-28T15:25:00.002-04:002014-08-28T15:25:55.854-04:00Committee finds no evidence, takes no action on complaint about anonymous website attacking a judge; discourages candidates' involvement in such entities<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee recently
received a complaint from a judicial candidate alleging improper campaign
activity on the part of an opponent which involved the creation and maintenance
of a website, or the creation of an email with a link to the site.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In accordance with our rules of procedure, our committee
inquired of the candidate against whom the complaint was made. After fully
considering the response, in which the candidate denied any involvement, and
being unable to determine ownership of the website because it is hosted on a
commercial server, the KJCCC has insufficient evidence to support a finding
that the respondent had any knowledge of the creation and maintenance of the
website.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Since the committee finds no evidence of improper campaign
activity on the part of a judicial candidate, it is not disclosing the names of
either party in this complaint. Both candidates signed a Campaign Agreement
with the Committee pledging to campaign according to the Kentucky Code of
Judicial Conduct and disavow advertising that uses false or misleading information
or accusations to impugn the integrity of a candidate, or erode public trust
and confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Since the complaint is a matter of first impression for the
committee, we do take this opportunity to discourage strongly any attempt by
judicial candidates to be involved anonymously in the use of entities that are
represented as independent but are connected to the candidate. While fully
supportive of free and open elections, the KJCCC urges judicial candidates to
conduct campaigns that are committed to upholding the integrity of the
judiciary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<i>The KJCCC is an independent, 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. A list of members is <a href="http://kyjccc.blogspot.com/p/committee-membership.html">here</a>.</i></div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745552487724972811.post-71502236198113872672014-08-18T23:19:00.000-04:002014-08-18T23:22:12.016-04:00Committee asks candidates to safeguard courts' integrity, voters to realize judicial elections are different<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>By Charles Boteler</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Chair and President, KJCCC</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Almost 40 years
ago, with bipartisan support, Kentuckians amended our constitution to create a
unified statewide court system with non-partisan judicial elections, ending a
system in which judicial candidates ran under political-party labels. In 2014 Kentucky
will elect all of its district, circuit, and Court of Appeals judges. In
addition, four justices of the Kentucky Supreme Court will be elected.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Kentucky
Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee was organized in 2006 as a private group to
monitor judicial elections to ensure as best possible that our judges are
selected fairly and in a manner that promotes the values of democracy and a
free and independent judiciary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For the most part,
Kentucky has avoided the bitter, overly politicized, and expensive judicial elections
which occasionally have marred judicial selection in some other states, most
recently Tennessee.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In this election
year the KJCCC makes two requests. First, we ask all judicial candidates to
campaign in such a way that their campaigns
positively support a court system that will be able to resolve, fairly and in
accordance with the rule of law, the various disputes that will require
litigation. Though some kinds of campaign activity may be constitutionally
permissible, we ask candidates to refrain from the kinds of campaigning that
sully the election process and even more importantly call into question the
effectiveness and impartiality of our courts. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, we urge
Kentucky voters to insist that judicial candidates wage campaigns that focus on
the issues relevant to the selection of a judiciary best equipped to function
as an independent and competent court system. Judicial elections are different and
Kentucky will be served best by judges free to evaluate fairly the evidence and
legal issues in all cases that might come before them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Kentucky has
selected its judges by popular election since the adoption of its third
constitution in 1850. Popular election works best when candidates are committed
to fair campaigns, and voters are committed equally to informed
decision-making.<o:p></o:p></div>
In this important
election year, the Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee pledges it will
assist in its role as a private monitoring group dedicated to promoting the
values of a well-functioning, independent judiciary, dedicated to the rule of
law.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Charles Boteler of Owensboro, a retired circuit judge, is president and chair of the Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee Inc., a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan group organized to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary in Kentucky's judicial elections.</span></i><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Al Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12359789093150390148noreply@blogger.com0