Why should you act now? Previously, all states with judicial elections had canons of judicial conduct that regulated what a candidate could say or do. For example, candidates were prohibited from taking sides on controversial political issues that might later come before them in court.
A 2002 Supreme Court decision—Republican Party of Minnesota v. White—struck down some of these provisions and called into question the constitutionality of other canons. The White opinion recognized, however, that the judicial role, and thus the election of judges, is unique from the role of executive branch officials and legislators. Litigation in federal and state courts is defining the full implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.
As a result, some candidates for judicial office are campaigning in ways that may call into question their impartiality as judges.
Judicial campaign oversight committees, both bar-led and those sponsored by other organizations, are needed to ensure that inappropriate speech is brought to the public’s attention and taken into consideration when voters choose between judicial candidates.
top