Opinion ID: 2419685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count I Newspaper Format

Text: As previously stated, appellant was a candidate in the general election held on November 8, 1994. She was subsequently elected to the position of Kenton County Circuit Judge by a margin of 15,302 votes to 13,861 votes. Nearly one week prior to the election, between 5000 and 6000 copies of the Kenton County Citizen's Courier were distributed to potential voters in Kenton County. The following appears on the front page of the distributed material: a. The name Kenton County Citizen's Courier with the caption Today's News For Concerned Citizens of Kenton County directly below the name. b. The designations Four Pages and Oct/Nov 1994. c. An article with the lead-in Through the eyes of a child . . . which contained a photograph of a young battered child. d. A bolded Editor's Note at the bottom of the article which reads: Editor's Note: The child's grandmother and legal guardian gave permission to use the photo in this article, explaining that due to excessive bruising and swelling, the child cannot be identified. e. Another article captioned Study shows child abuse affects go beyond childhood. The following appears on the back page of the document: a. A column headed Viewpoint . . . To the editor of the Citizen's Courier.  b. A letter purporting to be to the editor, supporting appellant and containing the statement: I will vote for Patricia M. Summe for Circuit Court Judge because I know Pat Summe is concerned about crime. c. A letter to voters from Judge Summe which is inset on the top right half of the back page. d. A return address of 3384 Madison Pike, Ft. Wright, KY 41017 without any identifying name or organization above it. Appellant maintains that the distributed material was appropriately identified as being campaign literature. She contends that the Kenton County Citizen's Courier was folded for delivery so that her letter and logo on the back page were clearly visible and would surely inform the voters that this was a campaign advertisement. She further asserts that the newspaper type mailer displayed her campaign logo, a paid-for acknowledgement, and contained a return address. Appellant also claims that the wording of her letter which was contained within the mailer clearly identified the whole mailer as being campaign material. We agree with the Commission's conclusion that nearly all of the Kenton County Citizen's Courier's features, both individually and collectively, portray the publication as something other than campaign literature. Basically, this was a newspaper-type publication which resembled a tabloid. While appellant's letter to voters within the mailer does indicate her campaign as its source, the way in which the letter is inset does not make it appear that the entire mailer is a paid-for campaign advertisement. More importantly, as the Commission noted, there is absolutely nothing on the front page of this supposed campaign literature which identifies its source or indicates who is paying for it. Likewise, other than appellant's letter, there is not one indication on the back page of the document that it is campaign literature. Instead, on both the front and back of the publication, words and phrases like Editor's Note, Viewpoint and To the editor of the Citizens Courier  are used. Even the name of appellant's campaign was left off the return address on the back page. Such a format could have only been used for one purpose  to mislead voters into believing that the Kenton County Citizens Courier was something other than campaign literature. In fact, appellant's own brother, Peter Summe, even testified that he suggested the format of the ad because most people do not like to read campaign material. Clearly, a voter who received this information in the mail, took it out of the mailbox with the address facing toward them, and then proceeded to open it and read it, would have no idea that this was campaign material. The only voters that would possibly come to this revelation would be those who subsequently turned over the document and noticed the inset campaign logo and paid-for acknowledgment. Even then, however, it is speculative whether a voter would realize that the inset campaign letter was not just a campaign advertisement in a publication, and actually applied to the entire mailer. Additionally, appellant argues that the format of the Kenton County Citizen's Courier was not misrepresentative as it was one commonly used in elections in Kenton County and her attorneys and campaign advisers had advised her that it was legal and appropriate. Multiple documents do exist in the record which indicate this format was used by many candidates who have run for office in the Northern Kentucky area. However, a careful examination of these documents indicates that unlike the present document, they are clearly marked as campaign material. For example, all of these documents contain some type of indication on the front of the mailer identifying them as campaign material. Additionally, an identifying name or source is provided above virtually all of the return addresses in these documents. It is also important to note that many of the additional documents in the record do not relate to judicial campaigns and, thus, are not governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. In fact, if appellant had not distilled down the format she adopted from others who have run for office in the Kenton County area, we probably would not be here today as the mailer would have unquestionably resembled campaign material. Moreover, appellant maintains that it would not constitute a misrepresentation of facts under our decision in Doyle v. Judicial Ret. and Removal Comm'n, Ky., 885 S.W.2d 917 (1994), because a reasonable person would know that the mailer was campaign literature. Contrary to appellant's assertion, Doyle, supra, is distinguishable from the present case. One of the issues this Court determined in Doyle was that an altered newspaper photograph used in a campaign advertisement did not amount to clear and convincing evidence of a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. Id. at 918. Clearly, what failed to constitute a misrepresentation in Doyle is different from what is alleged as a misrepresentation in the present case. Finally, we assert that the responsibility for the accuracy and fairness of the campaign advertisement ultimately lies with appellant. Neither appellant nor members of her campaign attempted to have the Kenton County Citizen's Courier reviewed by the Judicial Ethics Committee, although such service was available. While appellant did testify before the Commission that she did not present a request to the Judicial Ethics Committee because it took seven weeks for her to receive a response to a previous inquiry, the fact that she did not have enough time before the election to seek the Committee's opinion, should not provide her with a way to totally avoid the Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, using the clear and convincing standard we set forth in Wilson v. Judicial Ret. and Removal Comm'n, Ky., 673 S.W.2d 426 (1984), we affirm the decision of the Commission as to Count I against appellant.