Deters v. Judicial Retirement & Removal Commission (1994)

Citing Ackerson , the court concluded that the state had a compelling interest in limiting a judicial candidate’s speech “because the making of campaign commitments on issues likely to come before the court tends to undermine the fundamental fairness and impartiality of the legal system.” Id. at 205. 7 The Supreme Court of Kentucky most recently dealt with the First Amendment implications of Canon 5B(1)(c) in Summe v. Judicial Retirement and Removal Comm’n, 947 S.W.2d 42 (Ky…

See, e.g., Stretton, supra at 142-143 (upholding a judicial canon to the extent that the provision was narrowly interpreted to prohibit candidates from expressing an opinion only on issues that might come before them for resolution in their capacity as judges); Buckley, supra, 997 F2d 231 (declaring unconstitutional a judicial canon that prohibited candidates from announcing views on disputed legal and political issues); Ackerson v Kentucky Judicial Retirement & Removal Comm…

The district court noted that the "promises and commit" clause in Canon 5B(1)(c) has been used by the State to reach content covered by the "announce clause" struck down in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 , 122 S.Ct. 2528 , 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002)-that is, the State has used Canon 5B(1)(c) to prohibit a candidate from expressing "views on any specific nonfanciful legal question within the province of the court for which he is running ...." Id. at 773 , 12…

The district court noted that the “promises and commit” clause in Canon 5B(1)(c) has been used by the State to reach content covered by the “announce clause” struck down in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002)–that is, the State has used Canon 5B(1)(c) to prohibit a candidate from expressing “views on any specific nonfanciful legal question within the province of the court for which he is running . . . .” Id. at 773 ; see, e.g., Deters v. Judicial Reti…