Committee tells candidates they should consciously avoid campaigning that may mislead voters

The committee received a complaint in early October from a judicial candidate, alleging misleading campaigning by the other candidate in the race.

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.

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.

Most judicial candidates on May 22 primary ballots sign committee's proffered pledge to campaign fairly

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.

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. The primary-ballot candidates signing the pledge are listed below, with the number of candidates in the race if more than three. 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.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, Third District
Debra Hembree Lambert, Burnside
David Tapp, Somerset
JUDGE OF THE COURT of APPEALS, Seventh District, unexpired term (six candidates)
David Barber, Morehead
Kevin Sinnette, Ashland
Gene Smallwood, Whitesburg
Larry Thompson, Pikeville
CIRCUIT JUDGE, Family Court, unexpired term, 16th Circuit, 5th Division
Pete Roush, Covington
Terri King Schoborg, Covington
CIRCUIT JUDGE, Family Court, unexpired term, 22nd Circuit, 1st Division (four candidates)
Gregory Napier, Lexington
Nam Nguyen, Lexington
Eileen O'Brien, Lexington
CIRCUIT JUDGE, Family Court, unexpired term, 30th Circuit, 4th Division (four candidates)
Bryan Gatewood, Fisherville
Lauren Adams Ogden, Louisville
Shelley Santry, Louisville
DISTRICT JUDGE
6th District, 3rd Division
Daniel M. "Nick" Burlew, Owensboro
Misty Miller, Maceo
11th District, 2nd Division (five candidates)
Jude Hagan, Lebanon
Dawn McCauley, Lebanon
Jeremy Ancil Wood, Campbellsville
30th District, 3rd Division
Tracy Davis, Louisville
Jim Green, Prospect
30th District, 6th Division
Sean Delahanty, Louisville
Alex Gaddis, Louisville
30th District, 9th Division (four candidates)
Danny Alvarez, Louisville
Andre Bergeron, Louisville
Karen Faulkner, Louisville
33rd District (six candidates)
B. Cody Goehring, Hazard
Becky Williams Patterson, Hazard
Teresa Combs Reed, Hazard
Sheila Clemons Stoffel, Hazard
35th District, 1st Division (four candidates)
Joe Jett Friend, Pikeville
Amber Hunt Sisco, Pikeville
Robert F. Wright, Pikeville
35th District, 2nd Division (five candidates)

Tommy Chamberlin, Pikeville

Andrew Tyler Friend, Pikeville

Justin Cory Hamilton, Pikeville

39th District

Billy Oliver, Campton

Jarett Rose, Stanton

51st District, 2nd Division (four candidates)

David Curlin, Henderson

Leslie Newman, Henderson

Greg Sutton, Henderson

54th District, Division 2

Angela Greene, Union

Marcia Thomas, Petersburg

Committee receives complaint, gets response and prompt correction from target of complaint

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.

Committee reorganizes for 2018, which may be busy

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.

Judge Anthony Wilhoit

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.

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.

For a list of Kentucky judicial candidate filings, click here. 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.

Judicial candidates sign campaign pledges

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.

In alphabetical order, these are the candidates who signed the pledge this year, and the jurisdictions in which they are running:

Gina Kay Calvert, Louisville, 30th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
John A. Cook, Louisville, 30th Judicial District
Stephen C. Emery, Westport, 12th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
Bob Heleringer, Louisville, 30th Judicial District
Deanna Henschel, Paducah, 2nd Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
Susan Montalvo Gesser, Owensboro, 6th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
Julie Hawes Gordon, Owensboro, 6th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
Andrea Janovic, Fort Thomas, 17th Judicial District
James Lesousky Jr., Louisville, 30th Judicial District
Danny Lee Lunsford Jr., Harlan, 26th Judicial District
Anita Mindrup-Ivie, Henderson, 51st Judicial District
Lauren Adams Ogden, 30th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
Michael Pate, La Grange, 12th Judicial Circuit
John Gabriel Pendleton, Glasgow, 43rd Judicial District
Angela Thompson, Owensboro, 6th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
William Tingley, Louisville, 30th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
Laurance B. Van Meter, Lexington, Supreme Court (5th District)
Abby Voelter, Cold Spring, 17th Judicial District
Kimberly Blair Walson, Winchester, 25th Judicial Circuit (Family Court)
Stephanie C. Willis, Louisville, 30th Judicial District

For lists of all candidates for each office, go to http://apps.sos.ky.gov/elections/candidatefilings/statewide.

Judicial elections are different; candidates shouldn’t compromise themselves, and shouldn’t mislead voters

By Charles Boteler, Chair, Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee Inc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Committee asks judge to stop using campaign materials referring to her as 'the governor's choice'