|
|
| |
| Fri, Aug. 29, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Griffen: Judges should have First Amendment rights, too Thursday, Feb 2, 2006 By Aaron Sadler Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - Ethics codes prohibiting judges from speaking out on political issues infringe on judges' rights to free speech, Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Wendell Griffen said Wednesday. Griffen advocated allowing judicial candidates to openly discuss issues, saying banning them from doing so would lead to voter choices "based on ignorance." Griffen, noted for being outspoken on racial and political issues, has said he plans to run for a seat on the state Supreme Court this year. He spoke to students at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service. Former U.S. Sen. David Pryor, dean of the Clinton School, billed Griffen as "intelligent, articulate and controversial." The appellate judge has been the subject of conduct complaints before the state committee that disciplines. In 2003, the state Supreme Court overturned the panel's admonishment of Griffen for criticizing the University of Arkansas' record of hiring and promoting blacks in testimony at a Legislative Black Caucus hearing. The high court said the state code on such matters was too vague. The court subsequently changed the rule. On Wednesday, Griffen criticized Arkansas' judicial ethics canon, which bans judicial candidates from discussing issues that may come before them on the courts. "There is no sign over the First Amendment: 'Nonjudges Only,'" he said. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Minnesota code that is similar to Arkansas' last year. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal in that case. Griffen thinks that move may lead to changes in Arkansas' rules. He said the Arkansas guidelines were now "constitutionally suspect." "A judicial election should be more than a glamour contest between or among comparably attired lawyers who basically go around trying to have good breath and little body odor," he said. Some students in the class argued that judges should appear impartial, as should doctors, pharmacists and journalists. One argument proponents of strict speech make for muzzling judicial candidates is that the public may lose confidence in judges who express specific beliefs. They worry about costly campaigns that may leave judges beholden to special interests, or the more likely possibility that voters will hold jurists accountable for their views, Griffen said. He argued that all judges have beliefs, and keeping them from being expressed is a swipe at democracy. "No serious, thinking person reasonably believes that a judge actually has no views or values or beliefs at all," Griffen said, and any judicial candidate projecting himself as being without preconceived beliefs has "demonstrated they are incompetent." Judges with especially strong beliefs on issues can recuse themselves from hearing cases if necessary, he said. He predicted future judicial elections in Arkansas will be more costly, controversial and contentious, a consequence of similarly heated battles for positions on the federal judiciary. Though federal judges are appointed by the president, Griffen said he preferred Arkansas' method of electing judges. Judicial elections force candidates to meet voters and remind candidates who their employers are, he said. |
