While agreeing a Central Florida judge should be removed from office because of a "pattern of misconduct,'' two state Supreme Court justices wrote Friday that they think a ban on judicial candidates soliciting political contributions is unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Charles Canady and Justice Ricky Polston wrote that the ban, spelled out in what is known as a judicial canon, violates free-speech rights.
"(The canon) completely chills a candidate's speech regarding contributions while providing only marginal protection against actual or perceived judicial bias,'' Canady wrote in an opinion that Polston joined. "I therefore conclude that (the canon) encroaches on the free-speech rights of judicial candidates in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.''
Canady and Polston expressed their views as the Supreme Court ordered the removal of Circuit Judge N. James Turner, who was elected in 2008 in the 9th Circuit, which includes Orange and Osceola counties.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission alleged wide-ranging misconduct by Turner, such as violating campaign-finance laws by using a $30,000 loan from his mother for his campaign. Also, it said he improperly served as an attorney for his mother in a foreclosure case after being elected judge and acted inappropriately to a female courthouse employee.
The JQC also targeted Turner for sending out a campaign email that it said violated the state ban on judicial candidates personally soliciting contributions or soliciting public support from attorneys. The canon allows candidates to form committees to be involved in such activities.
A majority of the Supreme Court, however, declined to take up the political-solicitation issue. That means the ban will remain in effect, despite the objections from Canady and Polston.
"Because we conclude that Judge Turner's misconduct, apart from the (political solicitation) charges, requires his removal, we too decline to decide the constitutional issue at this juncture,'' said the opinion, which was supported by Justices Jorge Labarga, Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and James E.C. Perry. Justice R. Fred Lewis was recused from the case.
Political contributions in judicial races have become a widely debated legal issue in recent years, as courts weigh free speech and the danger that campaign cash could influence -- or appear to influence -- judges.
In 2009, a divided U.S. Supreme Court said a West Virginia Supreme Court justice should recuse himself from a case involving a coal company whose chief executive spent $3 million to help elect the justice.
But in a brief, Turner's attorney wrote that the facts in the West Virginia case involve "an extreme and blatant case of judicial corruption" that were not like the First Amendment issues raised by the Central Florida judge.
Also, Turner's attorney argued that federal appeals courts have rejected solicitation bans that are like the Florida prohibition.
The issue arose in the case because of a campaign email that Turner addressed to "friends, colleagues and voters."
One part of that email said: "If you would consider making a contribution to my campaign to help me communicate our message to the voters of this judicial circuit, please let me know and I will have someone from my campaign finance committee contact you,'' according to documents filed in the case.
