|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| |
 |
Newsroom |
|
|
 |
|
|
| |
The News
Your Florida Family Policy Council (FFPC) is often
in the center of the pro-family
debate in this state and involved with the most
recent issues that are important to
you. The following are some recent news clips of
FFPC’s involvement which has made the news.
 | |  | Religious Group Questions Fla. Judicial Ethics Code | | Fulton County Daily Report - May 23, 2008 | | | Alyson M. Palmer | | | Today, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a case that tests how far states may go in telling judicial candidates how to deal with public interest group questionnaires they receive during campaigns.The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct rule at issue mandates that judges must recuse in any case where in the course of an election campaign they committed themselves on an issue or controversy that later comes before them on the bench.The recusal rules in the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct do not contain a similar provision. But judicial election questionnaires have generated some controversy in the state. Today's case provides another opportunity for the federal appeals court to weigh in.The lawsuit is a challenge to some of Florida's judicial ethics rules filed by the Florida Family Policy Council, an advocacy organization associated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family that describes itself as "pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage." The challenge centers on a questionnaire the council disseminated to Florida judicial candidates in 2006 and its intersection with a recusal rule of the Florida judicial conduct code.That rule, Canon 3E(1)(f), requires a judge to recuse when "the judge, while a judge or a candidate for judicial office, has made a public statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to: (i) parties or classes of parties in the proceeding; (ii) an issue in the proceeding; or (iii) the controversy in the proceeding."In the summer of 2006, the Florida Family Policy Council sent a questionnaire to judicial candidates in the state. The questionnaire sought among other things the candidates' reaction to various statements, such as, "[t]he Florida Constitution recognizes a right to same sex marriage."The council received 53 written responses to the questionnaire; a significant number of the responding candidates declined to respond to some or all of the statements because of Canon 3E(1). The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, a board established by the Florida Supreme Court, had issued an advisory opinion saying candidates could respond to such a questionnaire as long as their response met certain conditions such as not promising to rule a certain way in a case, conditions that were incorporated into the final version of the Family Policy Council's questionnaire. But one successful candidate later would provide an affidavit saying he would have answered the questionnaire but for the canons and the advisory opinion.The Florida Family Policy Council filed suit against the members of the state Judicial Qualifications Commission at the end of August 2006, saying Canon 3E(1) was unconstitutional. Chief U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee disagreed and dismissed the case. Hinkle said the Florida rule was different from the one struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), where the Court said that a Minnesota ethical rule that a judicial candidate may not "announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues" violated the First Amendment."Canon 3(E)(1), including subpart (f), prohibits speech not at all," wrote Hinkle, "and burdens speech only a trifle, allowing a judge to keep the same job at the same pay and to perform the same kind of work with the same perquisites while giving up only the right to preside over cases (presumably few if any) in which the judge reasonably appears not to have an open mind. A judge has no First Amendment right to sit in such cases, and any right plaintiff has to hear speech of this type clearly does not encompass a right to have judges sit on cases in which they have made commitments."Indiana lawyer James Bopp Jr., whom Georgia Christian Alliance chairman Sadie Fields said vetted the Christian Coalition of Georgia's 2006 questionnaire to judicial candidates, is expected to make the Florida Family Policy Council's argument at the 11th Circuit today. He said states have adopted recusal provisions such as Florida's as part of the resistance of the "judicial establishment" to the White decision. He calls the position embodied by those provisions "radical" and an unconstitutional attempt to do what was prohibited by White."I don't have a problem with judges that are weak in will or character, whose commitment to their oath is tentative, I don't have a problem with them recusing if they want to," he said. "But to require a judge to recuse because he has previously stated his view on an issue uses recusal unconstitutionally as a proxy for the announce clause."Tampa lawyer Marvin E. Barkin is expected to argue today on behalf of the members of the Florida JQC. Besides arguing that the recusal canon is constitutional, Barkin's brief maintains that the policy council's challenge should be rebuffed because the JQC hasn't threatened or sought to enforce the recusal canon against any judge who answered such a questionnaire.Georgia's recusal rules mandate recusal where the judge has a "personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer," but do not include a rule like Florida's. Instead, Georgia's judicial ethics rules deal with campaign speech on the front end, saying judicial candidates "shall not make statements that commit the candidate with respect to issues likely to come before the court." A commentary to that rule, citing the White decision, says the canon "does not prohibit a judge or a candidate from publicly stating his or her personal views on disputed issues."Bopp said that rule still goes too far, although he said judicial ethics authorities could avoid it being struck down by making clear they will enforce it in only a very limited way. "The Georgia canon is too broad because it includes announcing your views," he said. Atlanta lawyer Benjamin F. Easterlin IV, who chairs Georgia's JQC, said the state has amended its judicial ethics rules to comply with White and other court decisions. "The fact that that gentleman might have a difference of opinion is understandable" said Easterlin, "but this is a difficult area where reasonable people might disagree."Easterlin said since White the JQC hasn't received any complaints about how judicial candidates have responded to questionnaires.The last time the state had a contested appellate race, in 2006, the Christian Coalition of Georgia sent the candidates a 37-question survey that included statements such as "[t]he Georgia Constitution does not recognize a right to abortion" and asked whether the candidates agreed or disagreed. Presiding Justice Carol W. Hunstein, the incumbent in that election, responded with a letter that didn't mention explicitly the state's judicial conduct code but argued that an answer from a candidate "would call into serious question whether that candidate, if elected, could later decide a case involving the same or similar issues in an impartial manner." By then operating under the name of the Georgia Christian Alliance, Fields' group released a voter guide that indicated Hunstein's opponent, J. Michael Wiggins, agreed with four statements, such as "[f]ederal funds to aid public [and] private schools that neither favor not disfavor religion do not violate the Establishment Clause." Fields said at the time that Wiggins responded to the questionnaire in a letter that addressed only the four issues reflected on the voter guide -- which besides the school issue included eminent domain, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and "judicial activism." This year, several of the state's appellate judges are up for re-election. While it's not clear any of them will face opposition, the announcement that Court of Appeals Judge John H. Ruffin Jr. won't seek re-election already has drawn several candidates. One of those, Lawrenceville, Ga., criminal defense attorney Michael M. Sheffield, was the only Court of Appeals candidate to answer questions posed by the Christian Coalition about U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with homosexuality, abortion and religion when he ran unsuccessfully for the state Court of Appeals four years ago. In response to criticism that he was committing himself to how he would rule on cases that might come before him if he won, he noted at the time that the state appeals court does not deal with constitutional issues.The case to be argued today is Florida Family Policy Council v. Freeman, No. 07-14830. | | | http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421638792 | | | | | |
|
|
|
| |
|
