Justice Hopeful’S Disclosures Raise Hackles

Let’s say you want to be a Supreme Court justice. Would it be a good campaign strategy, maybe, to go around violating the Idaho Code of Judicial Conduct?

One wouldn’t think so. But it’s pretty arcane stuff, and it’s not something that makes a lot of sense to most people.

The idea is that anyone going to court wants to be assured that the judge hasn’t already made up his or her mind. So the code, also referred to as the Canons - making it even more obscure - forbids judges from making any public comments about issues that might come before them in court.

That applies to folks running for judge, too.

So if you’re running a campaign for Supreme Court justice, you’re not supposed to say how you’d rule on abortion, whether you’d uphold a death sentence, that type of thing. Instead, candidates talk about their experience in court, their legal research, their education, reputation or other qualifications.

All except one, that is.

Wayne Kidwell is listed in the Idaho Family Forum/Idaho Christian Coalition voter guide as taking positions on capital punishment, the Roe vs. Wade decision on abortion, gun rights and prayer in the schools.

All the other candidates for justice declined to answer those questions, explaining that doing so would violate the judicial code.

Candidate Mike Wetherell, in a letter to the two groups, said each issue could come before the state Supreme Court.

“I did not think it was appropriate to respond, given the Canons,” he said.

Candidate Lowell Castleton wrote a similar letter, and delivered it to Family Forum chief Dennis Mansfield in person.

“I think anybody who responds to those particular questions has probably done something that is clearly a violation of the code of judicial conduct. All candidates are bound by that code,” Castleton said.

Although Castleton said he doesn’t want to pick on Kidwell, he added: “He ran four years ago for this office and did the same thing. He knows, he ought to know, that you can’t do that.”

Kidwell actually went much further when he unsuccessfully challenged Justice Cathy Silak four years ago. He touted his Republican credentials, got endorsed by the Idaho Citizens Alliance at the time the group was sponsoring a controversial ballot initiative on homosexual rights and ran ads promising to reverse gun laws.

The Idaho Judicial Council doesn’t investigate violations unless it receives a formal, notarized complaint. Council executive director Robert Hamlin can’t remember that happening in recent history.

And the sanctions for violating the code pretty much hit only judges, so a candidate who loses is basically off the hook.

Kidwell maintains his answers to the Family Forum questionnaire don’t violate the code of ethics.

“There’s nothing in Canon 7 that would suggest that I shouldn’t tell somebody my philosophy,” Kidwell said in a telephone interview.

A look at the Canons shows the section limiting statements on issues is in Canon 4. Canon 7 bars partisan activity by judicial candidates.

Kidwell suggested that the voter guide didn’t capture the nuances of his positions. For example, he said, on Roe vs. Wade, “What I pointed out is that the 14th Amendment in my opinion does not have a right of privacy in it, however I recognize that it is the law of the land and I take an oath to uphold the law.”

But the Family Forum provided his response to the survey, and it’s pretty hard to misconstrue: He just put check marks in the spaces for “support” and “oppose.”

Would you hire them?

In this newspaper’s effort to treat political candidates this year as applicants for jobs, with the voters being the employers making the pick, we asked candidates to send us resumes and cover letters explaining their qualifications.

But hardly any sent them in after the first request. Some needed multiple reminders. In many cases, after receiving the resumes, reporters had to go back and ask again for basic information such as employment history and education.

But at least none was snapping gum during their interviews.