Suit Questions Judge Elden's Election Ads

Political campaign advertising connecting 15th District Judge S. J. Elden to his ruling last month that the Ann Arbor marijuana ordinance is unconstitutional has come under fire from local attorney Arthur Carpenter, a man with a history of involving himself in controversial legal cases. Carpenter filed suit on his own behalf Thursday in Washtenaw County Circuit Court against Elden, who is seeking a seat on the Circuit Court in the November election. Attorney Donald H. Kenney, chairman of a citizens committee to elect Elden, is also named as a defendant. According to the suit, "The plaintiff alleges that the defendant and candidate Elden, by making an unnecessary constitutional decision in the midst of his campaign for higher judicial office and by advertising said decision or permitting the defendant Kenney to advertise said decision in the promotion of his candidacy, has violated Canon 30 of the Judicial Canons of Ethics. "The violation is exacerbated by the fact that his decision has never been reviewed by an appellate court and is even now, following rehearing, being held by the defendant Judge and candidate Elden under advisement." Canon 30 to which Carpenter refers reads, in part, that a candidate for judicial office "should not announce in advance his conclusions of law on disputed issues to secure class support . . . (and) should refrain "from all conduct which might tend to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is using the power or prestige of his judicial position to promote his candidacy ..." On the last point, Carpenter contends that Elden's actions "have without any question" tended to arouse such suspicions. At issue in the suit, however, is not the actual merit of the Sept. 29 ruling against the constitutionality of the local pot law, but the advertising campaign in support of Elden that has arisen from the ruling. For instance, Carpenter cites a paid political advertisement which appeared in The Ann Arbor News on Oct. 13 stating, "Some of Judge Sandy Elden's most courageous decisions have come back to his doorstep." The ad pictures a door to Elden's home on which' is stenciled in paint a group of marijuana leaves. This vandalism was committed by unknown persons within the week following Elden's controversial ruling. Carpenter claims in the suit that the stenciling was done by "either misguided pranksters or sly supporters." He also objects to billboards located around the area which state, "Judge Elden faces tough decisions . . . by making them." It is these kinds of advertising - either directly or indirectly associated with the marijuana decision - which Carpenter alleges are in violation of the Judicial Canons of Ethics. He requests in the suit that Elden and Kenney be permanently enjoined from further advertising in any media concerning the marijuana ruling and that they be ordered to remove, at their own expense, those billboards in the county which make reference to the ruling. Because of the nearness of the election, Carpenter is seeking to have the case determined one way or another within 10 days.