Michelle Keller
Non-Partisan | Kentucky
Candidate Profile*
Moderate
*Additional information appears below for educational purposes; however, only data received prior to the candidate deadline was considered during Panel Evaluation.
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Michelle Keller
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court, 6th District
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY, AD/Nursing, 1982
Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY, BS/Psychology, 1985
Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Highland Heights, KY, Juris Doctor, 1990
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Diocesan Catholic Children's Home, former Board member and Chair, Villa Madonna Academy
former Board Member, Kentucky Personnel Board, former Board Member and Board Chair
Kentucky Access to Justice Commission, Chair, Life Learning Center
Board Member, Kentucky Bar Association and Foundation, Member, former House of Delegates, Foundation Lifetime Fellow
American Bar Association/Foundation, Member Judicial Section and Lifetime Fellow/Foundation, Northern Kentucky Bar Association
former Chair, Women Lawyers Secion, Northern Kentucky Children's Advocacy Center, former member of Advisory Council
Salmon P. Chase Inn of Court, Barrister and Master, former President
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Judge, Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2007-2013
Justice, Kentucky Supreme Court, 2013-to present
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
ENDORSEMENTS*
*These endorsements were received after the deadline and were not considered in the Panel Evaluations and are for additional educational purposes only.
LIBERAL (6)
*United Auto Workers
Kentucky AFL-CIO
*Kentucky Educators' PAC
*International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 89
*United Mine Workers Kentucky COMPAC
OTHER (1)
*Kentucky Fraternal Order of Police
REPORTED BY CANDIDATE (1)
Retired Judges: Greg Bartlett, Michael Foellger, Daniel Guidugli, Steve Bates, Retired Justices: Bill Cunningham, Dan Venters, County Attorneys: Bob Neace, Beth Moore, Jennie Harrod
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (0)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (1)
Kimberly Moser (2014)
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (0)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (5)
Amalgamated Transit Union (2006)
Democratic Women's Groups (2014)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (2014)
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (2006)
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (2006)
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Keller has served on the Kentucky Supreme Court since 2013, representing the 6th District.
Notable Cases:
- University of Kentucky v. The Kernel Press (2021): Signed Justice Hughes' unanimous majority opinion. Held that the University of Kentucky failed to comply with the Opens Records Act (ORA) in refusing to provide information regarding a professor terminated on suspicion of sexual assault (para. 2--"Presented with the"). Noted that public agencies denying ORA requests must state the exception that applies to each denial (para. 30--"As noted, the General Assembly"). Cited that denials need not be document by document, but that general kinds of denials may also be given (para. 36--"Similarly, this court held that a police"). Held that the University's refusal was not sufficient because it a) covered 470 pages worth of evidence in one paragraph whereas City of Fort Thomas dealt with 30 boxes worth of evidence with that amount of description b) Kentucky law required that responses to requests be "detailed enough to permit the court to assess its claim and the opposing party to challenge it" (para. 36--"Similarly this court", "The University's initial"). Held that the trial court mistakenly accepted Family Education Right and Privacy Act information protections as an ORA exception under KRS 61.878(1)(k) (para. 42--"Although not cited in its initial"). Held that "education record" did not reasonably include all of the type of information the university withheld (e.g. "a camera user manual, the University's policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment and assault, and Harwood's curriculum vitae") (para. 50--"Turning to the case before us"). Held that the refusal was not completely covered under the KRS 61.878(1)(a) Privacy Exemption (para. 58--"So, although the public interest" and next paragraph). Held that the information was not protected under the KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) Preliminary Records Exemptions due to there never being a final finding of severance because the Harwood's resignation was in effect a final decision (para. 66--"Here, even though Harwood").'
- Gonzalez v. Johnson (2019): Signed Justice Lambert's majority opinion. Overturned precedent granting immunity to police officers who were the proximate or legal cause of damage on a third party by a fleeing suspect (1-2). Adopted a rule which would allow juries to determine whether an officer's actions were a substantial factor in causing injury to a third party (2). Held that the Chambers precedent had cited no statutes or legal precedent, and the decision was therefore "judge-made law" (6). Cited that almost no other states have such per se no proximate cause rules (6-7). Observed that the surrounding tort law had changed significantly since Chambers (8). Held that the proper standard for policy officers was due regard in accordance with KRS 189.940 (11).
- Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear v. Bevin (2019): Justice Keller signed Justice Minton's majority opinion. Held that the governor was within his statutory authority under KRS 12.028 when he issued an executive order making changes to various state education boards (1-2). Held that KRS 12.028 allowed the governor to temporarily reorganize any of the state's "organizational units and administrative bodies" while the legislature was out of session (4). Held that this was permitted by the plain text (6). Held that Section 15 did not apply because, even if the court assumed the laws were suspended, they were suspended under the authority of the General Assembly, which was one of the exemptions to Section 15 (10). Held that the temporary reorganization did not violate Section 183 (11). Held that separation of powers was not violated (14). Cited that the General Assembly may validly vest limited legislative authority in another branch, and held that the authority granted in this case was bounded by the end and beginning of the legislative session (17).
- Bevin v. Beshear (2018): Signed Justice Venters' majority opinion. Held that the passage of SB 151 did not comply with the three-readings requirement of Section 46 of the KY Constitution, and the law was therefore constitutionally invalid and void (3-4). Recounted that to pass the law before the legislative session expired, the pension reform's text was transplanted into an unrelated bill and passed as SB 151 (6). Stated that the General Assembly is the final arbiter of its own rules (footnote on 6). Held that the political question doctrine did not apply because it was in relation to the constitutional text, rather than an internal political process (11-16). Held that the process used was invalid because the bill's title had nothing to do with its contents. As a result, precedent required three new readings of the legislation (28-35).
- Beshear v. Acree (2020). Signed Justice Hughes' unanimous opinion. Held that 1) the governor properly declared a state of emergency and invoked the powers granted to him 2) KRS Chapter 39A was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority in violation of separation of powers 3) the governor was not required to only address the COVID-19 pandemic through emergency regulations adopted pursuant to KRS Chapter 13A 4) only one part of the challenged orders, which was no longer in effect, violated Sections 1 or 2 of the KY Const 5) the Boone Circuit Court did not properly issue injunctive relief (1-6). On the first point, the court noted that the text of KRS 39A.010 permitted states of emergency in the face of "biological...or etiological hazards" (33). Held that this permitted the governor's state of emergency declaration (33). Held that the governor had ultimate authority over local emergency management agencies, making the argument that local emergency management were required to have had admitted COVID-19 was beyond their capabilities prior to an emergency declaration irrelevant (36). On the second point, held that there was no evidence in the KY Const. that the powers the governor used must have been deemed legislative (47). Held that the structure of KY government made it almost impossible for the legislature to steer the state through an emergency (47). Held that KRS Chapter 39A reflected how emergencies were to be handled and rejected requests for it to be declared unconstitutional (48). Held that, to the extent the powers the governor exercised were legislative, Chapter 39A had safeguards to prevent abuse (52). On the third point, the Court held that Chapter 39A suspended Chapter 13A as far as it conflicted with the former, according to the plain text of KRS 39A.180 (57-58). On the fourth point, held that the use of property had never been recognized as a fundamental right under the KY Constitution that would be entitled to strict scrutiny (62). Held that public health regulations were judged based on their reasonableness (66). Held that all of the regulations were reasonable, except for one that was soon amended to become so (89). Finally, the Court held that injunctive relief was not justified because the greater interest lay with public health (90-91).
Judge Voter Guide gave 1 star.
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Choose not to answer
The Canons of Judicial Conduct, #4, prohibits me from answering this question as related legislation in this area may come before the Court
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Strongly Agree
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I am a practicing Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments of my Church. I have raised my family accordingly. The tenets of my faith guide my daily life.
What types of pro bono work have you done?
As a practicing lawyer I routinely represented indigent clients. I cannot do so as a Judge, however, I have dedicated a great deal of my professional Court work to the establishment and leadership of our Kentucky Access to Justice Commission. It's mission is to provide access to the Courts for those who might not otherwise be able to do so, and to help alleviate the justice gap which exists in our most vulnerable, poor, and underserved communities.
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
NO
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
I have a J.D. degree (law) and 32 years of experience in the field of law. I have always been an attorney in good standing with the Kentucky Bar Association. I have nearly 16 years of judicial experience at both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. I have served as both a prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. I have extensive practice experience in civil, administrative, and family law.
Why should the voters choose you?
I have served my District for nearly 16 years as a competent, fair, and impartial judge. I have ruled based upon the law, without regard for my personal preferences. I have served the needs of my multi-county district with passion, and have made every effort to lead by example. I have promoted civility and unity and acted as a mentor to countless young people.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
Politically, I am registered Independent. I have voted in every election, both Primary and General, in which I was eligible to vote.
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Agree
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
When the meaning of a statute is not readily apparent, it is sometimes helpful to refer to legislative history
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Chief Justice John Roberts
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
It is imperative that essential court business continue. For example, domestic violence, child abuse, and crime continue to occur even during a Pandemic and must be dealt with for protection of the public. Therefore, a balance must be maintained between providing court access and protecting the health of court staff and public participants.
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
A version of this may question may come before me, therefore the Canons of Judicial Ethics preclude me from answering further
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
As a judge, I have taken an Oath to uphold both the United States and Kentucky Constitutions. These documents mandate a separation of Church and State, and therefore, I must uphold this premise.
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Neutral
Religious liberty is enshrined in the Bill of Rights and US Constitution, and KRS 446.350, therefore in must be protected. I answered neutral because I have not experienced the risk you describe
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Only after careful deliberation, should stare decisis be disturbed. It is not common and should not be.
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
What does this question mean? I do not understand what you are asking? I follow the Constitution.
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
The Constitution and applicable state statutes
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Stare Decisis and Constitutional interpretation
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
I address every case on its merits, based upon the facts of the case, taking into strong reference our US and KY Constitutions and statutes, as well as stare decisis
