GEORGIA WEIGHS RULES FOR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES.The public has until Oct. 20 to comment on the Georgia Supreme Court's proposed new rules for judicial candidates. The rules were drafted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office. , striking down that state's restrictions on judicial campaign speech, and a federal appellate Relating to appeals; reviews by superior courts of decisions of inferior courts or administrative agencies and other proceedings. decision in Weaver v. Bonner striking down parts of the Georgia Code The official Georgia Code consists of statutes enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Georgia. Like other U.S. state codes, its interpretation is subject to the United States Constitution, the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the state's . The proposed rules provide that candidates would: * Not be permitted to commit themselves on issues likely to come before the court, although they could "appear to commit" themselves. * Not be allowed to lie knowingly or recklessly reck·less adj. 1. a. Heedless or careless. b. Headstrong; rash. 2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences: a reckless driver. about themselves or their opponents, although negligent negligent adj., adv. careless in not fulfilling responsibility. (See: negligence) misstatements would no longer be punishable. * Be allowed to solicit campaign donations personally. * Not be required to "maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office." * Not be subject to Judicial Qualifications Commission orders to stop speech determined to be false or otherwise in violation of the canons. A ban on statements that are misleading but not factually false would be dropped. |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion