Judicial Restraint From Courier-Journal.com Opinions, Wednesday, October 5, 2005 Kentucky's Supreme Court has made the best of a difficult situation. The justices have issued a new rule permitting candidates for the bench to express their personal views on controversial subjects, but in a way that might not result in the kind of political chaos some have been fearing. The need for this guidance results from a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision (brought by Republican interests in Minnesota) that overturned state restrictions on what candidates for the bench could say about their personal views. That 5-4 ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the traditional limits on judicial candidates' speech violated the First Amendment. The wisdom that prevailed before this ruling is self-evident. Every citizen is entitled to go before a judge and have faith that he or she will receive a fair hearing. If, in advance of election, a judicial candidate has declared that she's opposed to abortion, or favors capital punishment, or is against civil unions for gay couples (the list goes on and on), litigants will assume the reverse: that they can't get a fair shake. And they'll be correct in feeling that way. Of course, this is precisely what the far, socially conservative right, which has benefited immensely from distorted, well-funded political campaigns, wants. They realize that candidates who assail incumbents for responsible rulings on hot-button topics will prosper from sensational attack ads on TV and radio. Kentucky, which elects judges at every level, will be a laboratory for this new era of irresponsibility. In 2006, 272 judges in Kentucky will be up for reelection. It will be a confusing season under the best circumstances, but it could be dangerous if candidates mount concerted attempts to capitalize on that confusion and exploit voters' fears. The new rule permits judicial candidates to talk about issues, but they must not "intentionally or recklessly" say things that could be construed "by a reasonable person" to commit themselves to decide cases a particular way. The goal, of course, is prudence -- judicial temperament -- and this rule could well produce such a result. Already, however, the Family Foundation, which got Kentucky's old rule overturned in federal court after the Minnesota decision, is attacking the new rule. The experience in other states has been discouraging. Distortions and outright lies have been burnished by slick advertising people to demonize honest, honorable judges. Kentucky's high court is taking reasonable steps to comply with the free speech ruling, but retain the independence and responsibility of the judiciary. Those who would do otherwise deserve to be exposed and denounced for the disservice they are doing to our nation's historic system of checks and balances.