WASHINGTON - The nation's largest lawyers group is developing a plan to counter a Supreme Court ruling that gives judge candidates more freedom to act like politicians.

Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., the incoming president of the American Bar Association, said the organization fears nasty elections involving judges "forced to become partisan politicians."

This year, as voters in 33 states pick supreme court candidates, an ABA commission will study options such as publicly funded court elections.  The group meets in Detroit next week followed by public hearings this fall in Philadelphia, Portland, Ore., and Austin, Texas.

Carlton said Monday that the panel does not expect Americans to give up their elections, but it will look at limits for campaigns to solve what he sees as a public relations problem for judiciaries.

About 40 states have some type of judicial elections.  Most limit what candidates can say or do while campaigning.  States are having to review their restrictions after the Supreme Court struck down Minnesota's limits in June.

The ruling opens the door for candidates to talk more freely about controversial issues such as abortion and school prayer.

The ABA recommendation may include ending partisan elections in states that still allow candidates to run under party labels and new speech rules that could push the boundaries of the Supreme Court ruling.

The ABA and other legal groups have long argued that appointments would improve courts by getting the most qualified people as judges and insulating them from politics.

More than 80 percent of state court judges face some elections, and those races have gotten more expensive.  In 2000, state Supreme Court candidates raised $45.6 million, a 61 percent increase over 1998, according to the group Justice at Stake.

Federal judges are appointed by the president, and some states also have appointment systems.

A poll commissioned by the ABA found that people don't mind candidates speaking out or elections.  Three-fourths of those interviewed said they have more confidence in judges they elect than those who are appointed.