by Mike Sharkey
Staff Writer
On June 5, three local judicial candidates and an incumbent Circuit Court judge gathered at the Duval County Courthouse for a one-hour seminar on the ethics of judicial campaigning.
They were told that beyond informing voters about who they are, candidates are allowed to reveal very little else and — according to the ethics canons regarding judicial elections in Florida — virtually nothing about pertinent issues.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote, voted to lift the “gag” order on judicial candidates, allowing them to talk and answer questions more freely about such issues as the death penalty, abortion and school prayer without fear of being reprimanded by The Florida Bar.
Locally, judicial candidates said they would embrace the opportunity to talk freely and better educate the voting public about themselves and what they stand for.
“I personally think anything that gives voters information about you is good,” said Fernandina Beach attorney John Cascone, who is running against incumbent Circuit Court Judge Gregg McCaulie. “An informed voter is a better voter. Period. In a judicial race, more than anything, character counts. To me, this decision is a great decision. I’m not going to go out and say, I’m pro this and my opponent isn’t. But I do want to run a positive campaign and be able to answer questions that arise.”
Cascone doesn’t believe that candidates should immediately jump on a soap box and preach, but he does like the idea of being able to express his views without any penalty.
“I don’t think necessarily that judges need to go out expressing their views as a bulwark of their candidacy,” said Cascone. “But if we are in a public forum and people ask me questions, I want to be able to answer them.”
David Gooding, who’s running against Dan Wilensky for Circuit Court Judge Alban Brooke’s seat, said the timing of the Supreme Court ruling caught him off guard, but he welcomes the decision.
“I really didn’t anticipate that opinion until my election was over,” said Gooding. “I like the idea of being able to have more information available for voters, but that has to be balanced with the integrity of the bench. I know that’s a waffle of an answer.”
Gooding said that until he’s sure the opinion affects the Florida races he’ll continue to campaign under the guidelines of the ethics code.
“I don’t think that would be prudent,” said Gooding of changing campaign strateg. “I tend to wear belts and suspenders and err on the side of caution.”
McCaulie said allowing judicial candidates to talk freely about current legal issues and potential decisions could create a gray area between the need for a judge to remain impartial and his own personal beliefs.
“I haven’t read the opinion yet, so I’m not commenting on what it says or how it affects Florida,” said McCaulie. “My preference from personal experience it that we are better off not talking about issues that might come before us. If you really get down to what they [the voters] want, it’s a fair and impartial judge.”
While the judicial candidates seem to like the idea of better explaining themselves, the ruling may not affect Florida, where judges and judicial candidates are regulated by a code modeled on American Bar Association regulations that restrict what candidates for judgeships can say during election campaigns.
Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Scott Silverman, chair of the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, said the majority opinion shouldn’t alter campaigning because the State, in 1994, removed the offending language from its code of judicial conduct.
“Since the code doesn’t have that provision, the Supreme Court opinion will have no effect,” said Silverman.
Fletcher Baldwin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Florida, said restricting what judicial candidates can say during a campaign could be interpreted as a violation of the First Amendment, which addresses freedom of speech, saying voters, “have a right to know where [judges] stand. And, they [judges] have a right to tell you.”
However, Baldwin also pointed out that Florida laws are vague because the State has the right to restrict judges from making campaign promises about how they would rule in cases.