Federal court filing could clear the way for judicial candidates to publicly identify with political parties if a judge grants a requested injunction.
OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma officials have acknowledged in federal court that a state rule prohibiting judicial candidates from publicly identifying with a political party is likely unconstitutional, a concession that could reshape judicial campaigns if a federal judge agrees.
The concession came in a June 4 response filed by attorneys for the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints in a lawsuit brought by Kay and Noble counties judicial candidate Scott Loftis. In the filing, the council acknowledged that Loftis’ challenge to Oklahoma’s prohibition on judicial candidates identifying with a political party “has a likelihood of success on the merits” as it applies to non-incumbent candidates.
In its response, the council said it does not oppose a properly tailored injunction preventing enforcement of the restriction while the lawsuit proceeds. The filing also states the council would not enforce a related statute restricting incumbent judges from publicly identifying with a political party if such an injunction is granted.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, challenges both state law and provisions of Oklahoma’s Code of Judicial Conduct that prohibit judicial candidates from publicly identifying with political parties. Loftis argues the restrictions violate the First Amendment’s protections for political speech.
According to the council’s filing, the restriction could prohibit candidates not only from identifying themselves as Republicans or Democrats, but also from describing themselves as “liberal” or “conservative” because those terms may implicitly reveal party affiliation. The filing cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which recognized broader First Amendment protections for candidates seeking elected judicial office.
The council continues to defend other portions of Oklahoma’s judicial ethics rules challenged in the lawsuit, including restrictions on campaign pledges, promises and commitments, arguing those provisions remain constitutional.
U.S. District Judge Timothy DeGiusti has directed the parties to propose a hearing schedule, but no ruling has been issued on Loftis’ request for a preliminary injunction. Until the court acts, Oklahoma’s existing restrictions on judicial candidates remain in effect.
If the court grants the requested injunction, judicial candidates could publicly identify with political parties during their campaigns while the lawsuit proceeds. A final ruling on the broader constitutional challenge would come later.
