Below is a compilation of court decisions and amicus briefs on controversial judicial campaign issues in reverse chronological order. See the latest analysis in response to these cases in Trends & Issues.
Wersal v. Sexton (ongoing)
George Wersal challenged the endorsement, personal solicitation, and solicitation for a political organization or candidate clauses of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct on violation of free speech grounds. In granting a motion for summary judgment, the district court held the challenge to the solicitation for a political organization or candidate clause was not ripe. The court also held the endorsement and personal solicitation clauses tailored appropriately to meet the state’s interest in judicial impartiality. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the district court and found that all challenged clauses failed strict scrutiny. Appellee’s petitioned for an en banc rehearing and filed a citation of supplemental authority.
Bauer v. Shepard (2011)
Two Indiana judges joined with Indiana right to Life, Inc. to file suit against the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and the Indiana Disciplinary Commission challenging the commits, recusal, partisan-activities, and solicitation clauses of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct. The district court deemed any challenge to the prior version of the code of conduct moot and found all the provisions of the code constitutional. The Seventh Circuit upheld the decision while classifying Bauer’s challenge to prior provisions of the code as unripe, not moot. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari on May 2, 2011.
Siefert v. Alexander (2011)
A Wisconsin district court struck down canons prohibiting judges or judicial candidates from being members of a political party, from publicly endorsing or speaking on behalf of a political party's candidates or platforms, and from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions. The Seventh Circuit recently upheld the public endorsement and personal solicitation bans and struck down the party affiliation ban. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari on May 2, 2011.
Yost v. Stout (2010)
Judge Eric Yost filed suit challenging the endorsement clause of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction and the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Wolfson v. Brammer (2010)
While a candidate for judicial office, Randolph Wolfson challenged the endorsement, solicitation, campaign prohibition, commits, and pledges and promises clauses of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct on free speech grounds. After losing the election, Wolfson indicated that he did not intend to seek judicial office in the next election. The district court ruled the action moot. On appeal, Wolfson conceded the challenge to the commits clause was moot by revision of the clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held Wolfson’s claims regarding the solicitation, endorsement, and campaign prohibition clauses ripe and they were remanded to the district court. The challenge to the pledges and promises clauses was ruled not ripe. On the remand, the district court upheld as constitutional the personal solicitation and endorsement clauses of the code of conduct.
Caperton v. Massey (2009)
Massey Coal’s CEO Don Blankenship created a non-profit corporation through which he directed $3 million into the 2004 West Virginia Supreme Court race for ads that favored one candidate. That candidate, having won election in 2004, later became Chief Justice. Caperton, as CEO of Harman Mining, requested the Chief Justice recuse due to the expenditures, a request the Chief Justice denied. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the level of campaign funding was so “extreme” that it posed a threat to the due process rights of Caperton/Harman Mining and directed the Chief Justice recuse on remand.
Indiana Right to Life v. Shepard (2007)
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s holding that Indiana's “pledges or promises” and “commit clauses” were unconstitutional, finding that Indiana Right to Life lacked standing because there was no cognizable case or controversy. Indiana Right to Life’s standing was dependent on “the right-to-listen,” and the group failed to find a judicial candidate willing to challenge the relevant provisions.
Similar resolutions were reached in Kansas Judicial Review v. Stout, Pennsylvania Family Institute v. Black, and Alaska Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Feldman.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2005)
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held the “announce,” “partisan activities,” and “solicitation” clauses of Minnesota’s judicial canons unconstitutional violations of judicial candidate’s First Amendment guarantees.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)
This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the first addressing judicial elections, struck down provisions of the Minnesota Canons of Judicial Conduct prohibiting candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. The court left open the issue of whether a similar rule prohibiting candidates from making pledges or promises of particular results in particular cases is constitutional. The case was heard on remand by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Weaver v. Bonner (2002)
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down several provisions of Georgia’s Canons of Judicial Conduct. The Court of Appeals found a provision “prohibiting false statements negligently made and true statements that are misleading or deceptive” invalid, holding that rules governing candidate speech must be limited to an “actual malice standard.” The Court of Appeals also found a canon preventing candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions and “publicly stated support” invalid, because it had a chilling effect on speech.
|
