BY JOHN NOLAN
The Associated Press
A federal appeals court Thursday unanimously rejected the Ohio Supreme Court's attempt to limit what candidates may spend in election campaigns for state judgeships.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati became the latest federal court to reject efforts to limit spending by candidates for public offices.
The Ohio Attorney General's Office, which argued Ohio's case for limiting judicial campaign spending, is deciding now how it will respond to the appeals court's decision, said Jennifer Detwiler, a spokeswoman for the attorney general.
"We just received the decision" Thursday, she said. "We're going to have to look at it very thoroughly. I think it's going to take some time to get the gist of it."
Attorneys for both sides and others have said they expect the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I would imagine it would, because they're big issues," said Mike Allen, Hamilton County Republican Party chairman. "It's huge. It really is."
Laws limiting campaign spending for non-judicial offices are being challenged in various states. Ohio is one of 39 states in which judges are selected by popular vote.
Twenty-two states joined in a friend-of-the-court brief before the appeals court to support Ohio's defense of the spending limits. The states said they support the Ohio Supreme Court's conclusion that limits on judicial campaign spending are needed to protect the public's belief in an independent and impartial judiciary. But Mr. Allen argues the issue infringes on candidates' freedom of speech and hinders an adequate mass-media campaign. Spending limits are inadequate for candidates seeking to get their message out via paid TV spots, he said.
"We have generally opposed spending limits in races," Mr. Allen said of the Republican party.
In the case decided Thursday, critics of spending limits argued judicial candidates have a right to issue campaign messages to tell the public about their experience and education.
Ohio's lawyers have argued limits on what judicial candidates spend are needed so the public won't worry that judges would be tempted to decide cases in favor of campaign backers.
The appeals court ruled in favor of two Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judges, Ronald Suster and Patricia Cleary.
They challenged the Ohio Supreme Court's limit -- imposed in 1995 -- of $75,000 in campaign spending for trial judgeships on common pleas courts.
Judge Suster is now a candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court.
The appeals court's decision Thursday upheld a 1996 ruling by U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver of Cleveland, who rejected the spending limits.
Attorneys for Judge Suster and Judge Cleary argued limits on judicial campaign spending would violate their First Amendment free-speech rights. That argument is based on a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rejected Congress' attempt to limit election spending in congressional campaigns. In that decision, the high court equated campaign spending with free speech.
In Thursday's decision, appeals Judges Damon Keith, Eugene Siler Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey said they found no indication the U.S. Supreme Court intended for its 1976 decision to apply only to congressional election campaigns.
In April, the appeals court rejected a 1995 Cincinnati ordinance enacted to limit what candidates may spend in Cincinnati City Council election campaigns. The ordinance, which has never taken effect because of the court challenge, sought to limit city council candidates to spending no more than $140,000, three times a council member's annual salary.
John Hopkins contributed to this report.
