As early as 1924, the American Bar Association developed a code of conduct providing that a candidate for judge "should not announce in advance his conclusions of law on disputed issues of fact to secure class support."

The ABA wanted state judges to be selected on merit, not politics.

For generations since, candidates have cited various incarnations of that rule, or similar "canons" in their states, in declining to talk about issues that matter to the public.

Although the rules have generally kept judicial election campaigns from degenerating into mud-slinging contests, they often mean the electorate chooses judges without knowing where the candidates stand.

Now Pennsylvania's rule appears to be history.

Last Monday, the day before the primary election, a federal judge in Philadelphia issued a temporary injunction in favor of a group called Pennsylvania Family Institute and six judicial candidates, saying the state Judicial Conduct Board cannot enforce part of the Judicial Code of Conduct stopping candidates from speaking out on issues that might come before them on the bench.

The decision came too late to affect the primary, but critics of the current system say it could have an impact on the general election in the fall.

Although the injunction by U.S. District Judge David Katz is temporary, it said that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the case. The judge cited federal decisions in Indiana, Kansas, Alaska, North Dakota and Kentucky that threw out judicial speech rules identical to Pennsylvania's.

Pennsylvania Family Institute and another reform group, Democracy Rising Pennsylvania, which filed its own federal lawsuit in Harrisburg against the conduct board, are already preparing questionnaires in anticipation that the same will happen here.

They say it's about time.

"What we have now is the worst of all possible worlds," said Tim Potts, president of Democracy Rising, which based its lawsuit on reforms advocated by Duquesne University Law School professor Bruce Ledewitz.

"It means they will be able to respond to a lot more issues than in the past. As long as we're going to have elections, they ought to be meaningful. Public confidence in the courts is [already] abysmally low."

Democracy Rising asked for an injunction at the same time as Pennsylvania Family Institute, but U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner declared the request moot on Monday in light of Judge Katz's ruling in Philadelphia.

Most sitting judges and candidates won't comment on the Philadelphia decision, nor will state officials, because the litigation is pending.

But one Pennsylvania judge who did speak out said he fears judicial elections will now "go negative," which has happened in other states since a landmark 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Minnesota courts.

"That Minnesota case was a disaster as far as I'm concerned," said state Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille. "Once that came down, you could kind of see the handwriting on the wall."

In the 2002 case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, the high court overturned a Minnesota rule prohibiting judicial candidates from announcing their "views on disputed legal or political issues."

Justice Castille said the decision amounted to an attack by the high court on the election process for judges. He said allowing judges to speak on issues could undermine the dignity and impartiality of the judicial system.

"We're going to see things like what has happened in Alabama -- taking the low road [during campaigns]," he said.

It could also lead to more recusal motions to remove judges from cases and open the door for lawyers to challenge court decisions based on what a candidate for judge said on some issue before an election.

Justice Castille said he favors the current practice, in which a candidate cites his experience but not his views. That often was enough to give voters an idea of how he might rule.

For example, when he was a candidate and was asked about his position on the death penalty, he said he couldn't declare himself for or against it. But he could cite his experience as a district attorney who had pursued the death penalty in various cases.

Advocates for reform, however, say candidates should have the right to free speech like anyone else. In addition, they say many judicial candidates appear to use the canon as a default position to essentially say "no comment."

"If you don't say anything, it's easier on you," said Mr. Ledewitz, a frequent critic of the Supreme Court. "Once you start talking, it's a mess."

In the recent state Supreme Court race, Superior Court Judges Debra Todd and Maureen Lally-Green cited the rule in declining to state their views on such issues as abortion or gun control.

In response to a Democracy Rising questionnaire, for example, Judge Todd cited the "appears to commit clause" of the Pennsylvania canon, inserted after the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which says candidates shouldn't make statements that "commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court."

That clause, she said, prevented her from answering questions because "this would give the impression that I am pre-judging cases which may come before the court."

She didn't return a call, nor did Judge Lally-Green.

Many candidates answer questions, or try to. But some also seem to interpret the rule so narrowly that they won't comment even when the questions have nothing to do with their political views.

In the case of the Democracy Rising lawsuit, many of the group's questions concerned candidate opinions on rule-making issues based on Mr. Ledewitz's "Platform for Reform of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court."

For example, Mr. Ledewitz has called for an amendment to the Code of Judicial Conduct that would end private consultations between judges and legislators. It was just such a private meeting that critics said led to the midnight pay raises for judges and legislators in 2005, which cost Justice Russell Nigro his seat in a retention vote.

In response to the Democracy Rising questionnaire, most candidates gave answers that avoided taking a position on anything. The one by Cindy Dunlap Hinkle, a candidate for judge in Butler County, was typical.

"The subject matter of your questionnaire: transparency in governance, deference to the Legislature, and strict enforcement of constitutional limits are principles which I support generally," she wrote.

But, she went on to say, "any answer I may give to the specific questions posed may lead to speculation or the appearance that I have a pre-formed opinion on such matters. Therefore, I must respectfully decline to provide answers."