Elden Ad 'Smoke' Cleared

By Owen Eshenroder (News Courts Reporter) At issue was a paid political advertisement on behalf of 15th District Judge S. J. Elden which appeared in the Oct. 13 editions of The News. The ad pictured a door to Elden's home on which was painted a group of marijuana leaves. Attorneys Arthur Carpenter and Donald Kenney agreed on that much. But they agreed on very little else during a hearing Thursday in Washtenaw County Circuit Court before visiting Judge Harold Van Domelen of Oceana County. "I can hardly imagine a more flagrant example of a judge advertising his own decision in a campaign for higher judicial office," said Carpenter. "If this isn't an abuse of judicial office, I've never had one called to my attention." "The ad was designed to draw public attention to the vandalism that occurred to his home after the marijuana decision," responded Kenney. "The ad speaks out against the danger a judge faces when he makes such a decision." As it turned out, Judge Van Domelen ruled in favor of Kenney's argument, therefore a legal effort by Carpenter to force the banning of certain ads used in the election campaign of Judge Elden - who is running for a seat on the Circuit Court - failed. Carpenter claimed the newspaper ad, stating "Some of Judge Sandy Elden's most courageous decisions have come back to his doorstep" - violated Canon 30 of the Judicial Canons of Ethics by connecting the judge's candidacy to his ruling last month that the Ann Arbor marijuana ordinance is unconstitutional. Canon 30 reads, in part, that a candidate for higher judicial office "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 . . ." Carpenter noted during the hearing that whether Judge Elden in fact ruled on the local pot law for his own political advantage was not the issue, but whether by advertising the ruling he aroused the kind of "reasonable suspicion" forbidden by the Canon. Referring also to billboards around the county which state, "Judge Elden faces tough decisions . . . by making them," Carpenter said, "I think those words are designed to call attention to his ruling on the marijuana ordinance." Kenney, as chairman of a citizens committee to elect Elden and a co-defendant in the suit, contended that most of Carpenter's complaint "seems to be pulled together or held together by sly innuendo." He said the ads in question were not intended to publicize the marijuana decision and explained to Judge Van Domelen that the wording used on the billboards was decided upon in August - prior to Judge Elden's Sept. 29 ruling. In addition, Kenney attacked a statement in the lawsuit that the painting of the marijuana leaves around Judge Elden's home, which occurred after the constitutional ruling, was the work of "either misguided pranksters or sly supporters." Following arguments in the case, Judge Van Domelen denied Carpenter's request for a temporary injunction which would have prohibited further advertising in the Elden campaign based on or alluding to the marijuana decision. In order to issue such an injunction, the judge said; "The court would have to indulge in suspicion, conjecture, speculation and apprehension."