Ohio election laws case

The lawsuit filed last month challenging Ohio election laws which "banned judicial candidates from direct fundraising and disclosing of their political affiliation" met with a major setback yesterday when U.S. District Judge Susan Diott denied those plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to permit judicial candidates to be listed by political party on the general election ballot in 2010. ( Ruling )

"A significant impetus for this lawsuit was the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in Carey v. Wolnitzek, in which the court held that Kentucky's Code of Judicial Conduct canon regarding party affiliation and solicitation violated the First Amendment," the Court wrote. "Plaintiffs here ask this Court to expand Carey's holding by enjoining enforcement of Ohio's Rule restricting a judicial candidate's solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions and by requiring the Secretary of State to put judicial candidates on a partisan ballot."

In one particular answer the Court's response was that "The Sixth Circuit's decision in Carey directly impacts the Ohio Judicial Code solicitation clause challenged by Plaintiffs. At the time Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Ohio's solicitation clause provided that '[a] judicial candidate shall not personally solicit or receive campaign contributions.' Former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 4.4(A). Carey, decided and filed July 13, 2010, held that Kentucky's solicitation clause, which read: '[a] judge or candidate for judicial office shall not solicit campaign funds,' was unconstitutionally overbroad.This lawsuit quickly followed. However, the members of the Supreme Court of Ohio, who are responsible for enacting and enforcing the Ohio Judicial Code of Conduct, also responded quickly, and, on August 11, 2010, this Court received notice that the Supreme Court of Ohio had revised Rule 4.4(A).The revised Rule no longer prohibits judicial candidates from all forms of personal solicitation. Now, a judicial candidate may (1) make a general request for campaign contributions when speaking to an audience of twenty or more individuals and (2) sign letters soliciting campaign contributions if the letters are for distribution by the judicial candidate’s campaign committee and the letters direct contributions to be sent to the campaign committee and not to the judicial candidate…. To wit, the revised Rule maintains its ban on one-on-one solicitation but permits precisely the types of solicitation the Carey Court said presented little risk of undue pressure or the appearance of a quid pro quo: speeches to large groups and signed mass mailings."