Kentucky has non-partisan judicial elections. On October 29, U.S. District Court Judge Amol Thapar enjoined a Kentucky rule that forbids judicial candidates from “campaigning as a member of a political organization.” Winter v Wolnitzek, eastern district, 2:14cv-119.
Kentucky already lost an earlier case against a rule that didn’t permit judicial candidates to mention their party affiliation. After that was struck down, in 2010, the rule was amended. One of the reasons for the new ruling is that the new rule is too vague. The Judicial Conduct Commission argued that what the rule means is that a candidate can’t say he or she is the nominee of a political party, but the court did not agree with that interpretation, and asked, “How would one know that ‘I am a Republican judicial candidate’ is prohibited, but ‘I am a judicial candidate, a Republican, and endorsed by the Republican Party’ is not?…a reasonable judicial candidate would not have notice of the lines the Commission has drawn.”
All candidate for a judgeship – where statute allows them to be elected – should be elected on non-partisan ballots, and the statutes should prohibit them making any reference in their political advertisements to a political party of which they may belong, and no political party should be allowed to endorse such judicial candidate.
In fact, it would be a good idea, to require such judges – once elected – to re-register (if party registration is allowed)as non-partisan. Of course in states where there is no party registration, such candidates ought to have to declare under oath they are non-partisan as a requirement to run for judge.