Thanks for Sort-of Not Gagging Me
Imagine an America in which a candidate for office fears prosecution if he answers a questionnaire . . . about his views. Which views? The ones voters want to know about.
Farfetched scenario plucked out of some bleakly imagined future? From the Twilight Zone? Sorry, no; just passing along what I read in the newspaper.
An organization called the Pennsylvania Family Institute sent a questionnaire to judicial candidates inviting their views on controversial topics. Many candidates felt they couldn’t answer it. Seems there’s a law banning statements by judicial candidates that “appear to commit†them to decide legal issues a certain way. These candidates feared prosecution.
Hey, it might be a bad idea for a candidate for judgeship to give a specific answer about a specific case apt to come up after he takes office. But the questionnaire wasn’t about such cases.
And then there’s the First Amendment, which protects free speech per se. Not merely well-advised free speech.
The Pennsylvania Family Institute and six judicial candidates in Lancaster Country sought relief in court. After a judge issued an injunction against the law, officials signed an affidavit swearing they’d enforce it only against candidates who promised a specific ruling in a specific case. It would be okay to answer a questionnaire.
So the case was dismissed. The plaintiffs accept the outcome as a victory.
It is. But it reminds us that even in America, freedom of speech is constantly at risk.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
