Federal Judge Denies Wisconsin Right To Life Request For Injunction To Suspend State Judiciary Electoral, Recusal Rules

U.S. District Court Judge John Shabaz on Tuesday denied Wisconsin Right to Life and eight state residents' request to issue a temporary injunction to suspend state rules that prohibit judicial candidates from making public comments on issues, such as abortion, and that require judges to recuse themselves from cases on which they have taken sides publicly, the AP/St. Paul Pioneer Press reports (Foley, AP/St. Paul Pioneer Press, 2/14). Wisconsin Right to Life and the residents last month filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and the state Office of Lawyer Regulation, alleging that the rules prohibit judicial candidates from expressing their views on "cases, controversies and issues" that are likely to come before them and that they are unconstitutional because they violate candidates' constitutional rights to free speech and association. The suit says the group was unable to use its survey in 2006 -- which asked judicial candidates questions concerning their positions on issues, such as abortion -- because six of the seven candidates declined to answer, citing the state Supreme Court rules. According to the suit, "It is in the public interest for citizens to know about the views on disputed political and legal issues espoused by judicial candidates, that they might make an educated decision in casting their vote in the upcoming elections." The suit said that while the goal of the rules is to maintain an impartial judiciary, the result is the opposite, adding, "Since it is apparent that judges and judicial candidates have views on disputed legal or political matters, there is also a danger that silence inspires the suspicion that they are hiding their views to mask their impartiality or bias" (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/4). Shabaz is expected to rule on the lawsuit later this year, the AP/Pioneer Press reports.

Ruling, Reaction
Shabaz on Tuesday ruled against issuing the temporary injunction, saying the lawsuit likely would fail. Wisconsin Right to Life failed to show that candidates would answer the questionnaire if the rules were not in place, Shabaz wrote in his opinion, adding the state "has a compelling interest in ensuring that its judges be impartial to the parties before it." James Bopp, an Indiana-based attorney representing Wisconsin Right to Life, said, "We've done the surveys, and people have refused to answer because of judicial canons." He added, "The rules are understood by judicial candidates to prohibit announcing their views." Lawyers representing the state have said the rules are narrow and only prevent candidates from telegraphing how they will rule on specific controversial issues (AP/St. Paul Pioneer Press, 2/14).

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