Law & Principles

OCPA files lawsuit to protect free speech, voters’ right to information

May 26, 2026

Ray Carter

A federal lawsuit filed by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) on behalf of a district judicial candidate argues that state law and regulations unconstitutionally violate candidates’ free-speech rights and prevent voters from being informed about candidates’ qualifications.

Ryan Haynie, director of OCPA’s Center for Law and Liberty, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of judicial candidate Scott Loftis.

The defendants in the case are officials with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.

The complaint filed in Loftis v. Rose notes that the rules enforced by the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints are in violation of prior federal court rulings, including Brown v. Hartlage in 1982, when a federal court held, “It is simply not the function of government to select which issues are worth discussing or debating in the course of a political campaign.” The complaint also says Oklahoma law and regulations conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which declared that the U.S. Supreme Court has “never allowed the government to prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election.”

Despite those rulings, the complaint notes that Oklahoma law, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and opinions of the Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel all “deter, suppress, and punish campaign speech that would otherwise help educate voters in judicial races.”

Currently, Oklahoma law prohibits a judicial candidate from acknowledging his or her party affiliation during a campaign. Similarly, the Rules for Judicial Conduct impose a “content-based restriction on political speech” that “violates the First Amendment” right of candidates, the complaint notes. And the Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel has issued orders that advise judges and judicial candidates that it is illegal for other individuals to refer to the candidate as a “Conservative Hero” in print or for the candidates to describe themselves as a “Conservative,” including in an instance where a judicial candidate was a high-profile and well-known former legislator who served as a Republican in the Oklahoma House of Representatives for 24 years.

Loftis is a lawyer who resides and practices in Ponca City. He is currently a candidate for District Judge in District 8, which covers Kay and Noble Counties.

The complaint notes, “Loftis wants to position himself as the ‘conservative, law-and-order’ candidate in the race for District Judge. In fact, he has, at times, described himself as the most conservative candidate in the race. He has done so relying on the decision by the United States Supreme Court in White.”

Now, however, the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints has issued a decision indicating that the use of that language could lead to a successful candidate being removed from the bench.

“Loftis is concerned that if referring to himself as a ‘conservative’ violates the law, other statements could potentially also violate the law,” the complaint notes. “For instance, he fears if he were to say he is a Southern Baptist, that could potentially also violate the law.

The complaint notes that regulations restricting free speech based on content are not only unconstitutional but also harm voters.

“Loftis wants to engage in open and robust intellectual debate regarding his qualifications, views, and beliefs that he believes differentiates himself from his opponents,” the complaint continues. “Loftis wants to … engage with voters on a full range of issues, including his political views that might ‘out’ him as a Republican.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Minnesota v. White noted that there “is an obvious tension” between judicial elections and state laws that limit judicial candidates’ free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court held that states may not “censor what the people hear as they undertake to decide for themselves which candidate is most likely to be an exemplary judicial officer.” The court held that states cannot leave “the principle of elections in place while preventing candidates from discussing what the elections are about,” saying that requirement effectively mandates “state-imposed voter ignorance.”

OCPA has also requested a preliminary injunction, noting that Loftis “will likely prevail on the merits of these constitutional claims” and is currently having his free speech restrained, meaning he “is suffering concrete injuries as a direct result of the unconstitutional law and policies” in Oklahoma.