THE FAMILY FOUNDATION

The *Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky*, the nonprofit parent organization *of The Family Foundation* as well as the *Kentucky Candidate Information Survey,* filed suit in the 6^th District of federal court on Sept. 23 to seek relief from overbearing regulations on what candidates for judicial office in Kentucky can communicate with voters. Currently, the *Family Trust Foundation* alleges, candidates are so restricted that voters have no way of knowing any candidate’s philosophy of law, approach to the constitution and general perspective on current legal and political issues.

“We simply want the everyday Kentucky voter to have the same opportunity for scrutiny of judicial candidates that a U.S. Senator has when he evaluates a judge nominated by the president to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Kent Ostrander, Executive Director of *The Family Foundation* and spokesperson for the *Family Trust Foundation.* “Both selection processes are constitutionally authorized and both should have the same liberties. Why should judge selection in Kentucky be done in ignorance?”

Attorneys for the *Family Trust Foundation* are building their case around the 2002 Minnesota v. White U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down regulations similar to Kentucky’s in Minnesota. These same attorneys argued the 2002 case before the Supreme Court and are optimistic that they’ll find favor in Kentucky.

The *Kentucky Candidate Information Survey* has been a project of the *Family Trust Foundation* for over ten years. The Survey has always covered state and federal legislative races in the biennial elections as well as the four-year cycle of statewide executive branch offices. This year the *Survey* expanded its breadth by including judicial candidates in its mailings of questionnaires.

This year’s legislative portion of the *Survey* covered 142 state and federal race and had a 97 percent response rate from candidates. More than 350,000 copies have been printed and are being circulated across the state, the website is online (www.votekentucky.us) and more than 150 local and regional newspapers have received copies of the *Survey* information for their use.

Though many of the judicial candidates replied to the *Survey*’s initial mailing, most articulated a reluctance to respond with complete answers because of candidate guidelines set by the Kentucky Bar Association and the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission. It is these two groups that are targets of the suit, which claims violation of the free speech rights of candidates and violation of the rights to hear free speech of both *Kentucky Candidate Information Survey* and Kentucky voters.

“The *Survey* does not ask a candidate to pre-judge any case or to promise before hand any ruling,” said Ostrander. “Its purpose is to simply illuminate each candidate’s general approach to the task of the office he or she seeks, thus giving voters understanding and opportunity to differentiate between all the candidates running for the office.”

The complaint seeks immediate injunctive relief so that the new judicial effort of the *Survey* could be made available to voters before the Nov. 2 election. The broader, more general question of whether the current guidelines are too stringent, and as such, are unconstitutional would not be fully argued or decided until 2005.

Ostrander believes that if the suit stands, the new openness in the process of selecting judges would be a part of Kentucky’s answer to the recent and frequent, seemingly whimsical acts of judges across the nation. “By having a better-informed electorate of where the candidates stand the entire system is held more accountable,” Said Ostrander. “Then we’ll return to be a nation under the rule of law, rather than under the rule of judges.”
Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander , Executive Director Martin Cothran , Senior Associate Policy Analyst

The Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, the nonprofit parent organization of The Family Foundation as well as the Kentucky Candidate Information Survey, filed suit in the 6^th District of federal court on Sept. 23 to seek relief from overbearing regulations on what candidates for judicial office in Kentucky can communicate with voters. Currently, the Family Trust Foundation alleges, candidates are so restricted that voters have no way of knowing any candidate’s philosophy of law, approach to the constitution and general perspective on current legal and political issues.

“We simply want the everyday Kentucky voter to have the same opportunity for scrutiny of judicial candidates that a U.S. Senator has when he evaluates a judge nominated by the president to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Kent Ostrander, Executive Director of The Family Foundation and spokesperson for the Family Trust Foundation. “Both selection processes are constitutionally authorized and both should have the same liberties. Why should judge selection in Kentucky be done in ignorance?”

Attorneys for the Family Trust Foundation are building their case around the 2002 Minnesota v. White U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down regulations similar to Kentucky’s in Minnesota. These same attorneys argued the 2002 case before the Supreme Court and are optimistic that they’ll find favor in Kentucky.

The Kentucky Candidate Information Survey has been a project of the Family Trust Foundation for over ten years. The Survey has always covered state and federal legislative races in the biennial elections as well as the four-year cycle of statewide executive branch offices. This year the Survey expanded its breadth by including judicial candidates in its mailings of questionnaires.

This year’s legislative portion of the Survey covered 142 state and federal race and had a 97 percent response rate from candidates. More than 350,000 copies have been printed and are being circulated across the state, the website is online (www.votekentucky.us) and more than 150 local and regional newspapers have received copies of the Survey information for their use.

Though many of the judicial candidates replied to the Survey’s initial mailing, most articulated a reluctance to respond with complete answers because of candidate guidelines set by the Kentucky Bar Association and the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission. It is these two groups that are targets of the suit, which claims violation of the free speech rights of candidates and violation of the rights to hear free speech of both Kentucky Candidate Information Survey and Kentucky voters.

“The Survey does not ask a candidate to pre-judge any case or to promise before hand any ruling,” said Ostrander. “Its purpose is to simply illuminate each candidate’s general approach to the task of the office he or she seeks, thus giving voters understanding and opportunity to differentiate between all the candidates running for the office.”

The complaint seeks immediate injunctive relief so that the new judicial effort of the Survey could be made available to voters before the Nov. 2 election. The broader, more general question of whether the current guidelines are too stringent, and as such, are unconstitutional would not be fully argued or decided until 2005.

Ostrander believes that if the suit stands, the new openness in the process of selecting judges would be a part of Kentucky’s answer to the recent and frequent, seemingly whimsical acts of judges across the nation. “By having a better-informed electorate of where the candidates stand the entire system is held more accountable,” Said Ostrander. “Then we’ll return to be a nation under the rule of law, rather than under the rule of judges.”