Right ruling, wrong result.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Let's pretend for a moment - just pretend, mind you - that you someday have the misfortune of being arrested for corporate tax evasion, and find yourself in front of a judge who won election after promising to deliver swift and certain justice to all white collar criminals.

Let's make the situation even more dicey. Say you've been convicted of murdering your boss, and you are standing before the bench, awaiting sentencing from a judge who was recently elected after pledging to bring Ol' Sparky out of mothballs.

Feeling a tad uneasy, are we?

The U.S. Supreme Court last week ruled that such conduct by judicial candidates is perfectly legal. The court struck down a Minnesota rule of judicial conduct barring candidates in judicial elections from announcing their "views on disputed legal or political issues."

Most of the 39 states in which judges are popularly elected, including Oregon, use some version of this rule, which is based on an American Bar Association template. Its intent is commendable - to prevent judicial candidates from declaring in advance how they would rule on matters that may come before them in court.

It's hard to argue with the logic of the ruling. In writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said such rules violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, noting, "We have never allowed the government to prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters."

True enough. Yet the fact remains that judicial candidates are a different breed of cat than other political hopefuls. Few thoughtful Americans would dispute that the integrity of the judicial system requires that judges not paint themselves into prejudicial corners in elections. Do we really want to see judges seeking campaign donations from special interest groups by promising to promote their interests from the bench?

The problem, of course, is that voters have every right to expect that candidates for county commissioner or Congress fulfill their campaign promises if they're elected. But judges are not supposed to rule according to campaign promises or what voters want them to do. Judges are supposed to rule according to the law. (Somebody say amen.)

So what's to be done in the aftermath of the court's ruling?

First, it's not yet certain how the decision will affect Oregon's rules of judicial conduct. While the justices overturned a Minnesota rule that barred candidates from announcing their opinions on issues, Oregon's law takes an alternate tack, prohibiting candidates from making pledges or promises of conduct. It's a small difference, but one that could leave Oregon's rule in place.

If the court's ruling overturns Oregon's rule, the easiest and most desirable fix would be to switch to a different system of selecting judges. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor observed that the very practice of electing judges compromises the integrity of the judiciary. There's truth to that reasoning. Judges have to raise campaign money, often a lot of it, to get elected. In order to win endorsements, they often have to provide an indication, often subtly expressed, of how they'll address controversial issues.

There is much to be said for alternatives such as the Missouri system. Under this plan, nonpartisan judicial candidates are nominated by a judicial commission and selected by the governor. In subsequent elections, sitting judges run unopposed, with voters asked to vote for or against them on the strength of their performance on the bench. It's a sensible system that eliminates the contaminating influence of contested elections and yet still holds judges accountable to voters.

While such a system would benefit this state's judiciary, Oregonians may be unwilling to give up the tradition of electing judges. A partial solution would be for the Oregon Bar Association to disqualify from its pre-election bar polls any judicial candidates who improperly state their views on disputed legal or political issues. The threat of such action - and its potential impact on contributions and voters - would help dissuade candidates from improperly declaring positions.

While the Supreme Court was right in coming down on the side of free speech, it's still incumbent on judicial candidates - and Oregon voters - to protect the ultimate value of impartial judging.