U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland on Tuesday ruled that North Dakota's restrictions on what judicial candidates are allowed to talk about while campaigning violate candidates' free speech rights and create "a chilling effect" on efforts by the candidates to express their views on certain topics, including abortion rights, the AP/Yahoo! News reports (Wetzel, AP/Yahoo! News, 3/23). The North Dakota Family Alliance, a Christian organization that opposes abortion rights, and Stella Jeffrey, an employee of the Catholic Diocese of Fargo, in October 2004 filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking to permit judicial candidates to answer questions about abortion and other issues. NDFA had sent out a questionnaire seeking judicial candidates' views on interpreting the state constitution with regard to abortion and other issues. However, many candidates declined to answer the questions, citing the "commit clause." The state's Code of Judicial Conduct, which guides the state's judicial elections, contains a commit clause prohibiting judicial candidates from making statements that could give the appearance of impartiality. The lawsuit said that the commit clause violates free speech and prevents voters from making informed decisions (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 10/6/04). In his 37-page opinion, Hovland said that judicial candidates are not required to express their views and that doing so could create a "serious ethical dilemma" that would later require recusal, the Fargo Forum reports (Zent, Fargo Forum, 3/23). He also said it is "clear that a judicial candidate's speech during an election campaign occupies the core of the protections afforded by the First Amendment."

Previous Supreme Court Ruling
The ruling by Hovland, who said the speech restrictions in the North Dakota case were "almost indistinguishable" from those in a similar Minnesota case, brings North Dakota in line with a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding the Minnesota case, the AP/Yahoo! News reports (AP/Yahoo! News, 3/23). The Supreme Court in June 2002 ruled in a 5-4 decision that Minnesota state judicial candidates have a right to free speech during campaigns and may openly discuss their views on issues such as abortion (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 10/6/04).

Reaction
NDFA Executive Director Christina Rondeau "praised" the ruling, saying, "The way things have been, it really made the whole idea of being able to elect your judges almost a farce because you're trying to elect someone without having any real idea about their opinions or their philosophy," according to the AP/Yahoo! News. However, Brian Neugebauer, chair of the North Dakota Supreme Court's committee on judicial standards, said the ruling could have "negative" impacts, according to the AP/Yahoo! News. "People will be elected who may not be competent to be a judge, but they're on the right side of an issue with a majority of the people," he said, adding, "I'm not saying the decision was wrong. I'm saying the effect will be bad" (AP/Yahoo! News, 3/23).