Topeka ? The Kansas Supreme Court was asked Friday to decide whether a judge or candidate for the bench violates the canons of ethics by answering questionnaires.

Attorneys told the justices the issue is a question of two fundamental constitutional rights, those of the judges’ free speech and of the public’s right to a fair trial.

“This is a clash of constitutional rights, no doubt about it,” said George Patton, an attorney for the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

The issue surfaced in 2006 when Kansas Judicial Watch sought to ask judges questions about their personal beliefs and positions on certain issues. A federal judge in Topeka issued an injunction blocking the enforcement of the ethics provisions by the qualifications commission on Judicial Qualifications, which appealed the decision.

However, the federal appeals court in Denver requested the Kansas state court clarify the provisions before it considered the commission’s appeal. The Kansas ruling could come as early as Oct. 17.

Guiding the decision is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Minnesota Republican Party v. White that held that ethics canons that prohibit judges from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues were unconstitutional.

Kansas Judicial Watch sent out its questionnaires saying that ruling cleared the way for judicial candidates to answer. The conservative group based in Andover said it didn’t think answering the questions violated Kansas canons, but recognized that judges and candidates may think they are prohibited.

Anita Woudenberg, who argued Friday for Kansas Judicial Watch, said the prohibition had a chilling effect on the judicial candidates’ free speech.

The questionnaire asked judges and candidates to share their views on gay marriage, pornography, abortion, assisted suicide and whether the Supreme Court violated the separation of powers provisions by ordering increases in school funding.

“Free speech is chilled because they don’t have clear guideposts of what can and can’t be said,” Woudenberg said.

The qualifications commission has proposed changes in the Kansas canons to conform with the 2002 ruling. Those revisions were designed to make it acceptable for judges to answer the questionnaires and still maintain their duty to be impartial, attorneys said.