Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White

 
US Supreme Court: Republican Party of Minnesota v. White

536 U.S. 765 (2002), argued 26 March 2002, decided 27 June 2002 by vote of 5 to 4; Scalia for the Court, O'Connor and Kennedy concurring, Ginsburg and Stevens in dissent.

Thirty‐nine states have some form of election to select or retain all or some of their judges. Those elections differ in various ways from elections for other state offices, such as restricting political speech during campaigns. In White, the Court considered a canon of judicial conduct of the Minnesota Supreme Court that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. The majority of the Court, speaking through Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the ban violated the First Amendment, because it prohibited political speech at the core of First Amendment protections. The prohibition did not survive a strict scrutiny test, because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. In particular, a restriction on statements made in a judicial campaign did not serve the purported goal of electing impartial judges. Nor was there a long‐established tradition in American history of limiting such speech; judicial codes restricting judicial campaign speech were first advanced by the American Bar Association (ABA) in the 1920s. States may not mandate judicial elections while simultaneously preventing candidates from discussing issues. The dissenters argued that judges were different than political figures, and that states could restrain candidate speech in the interest of maintaining an impartial judiciary.

The majority opinion disclaimed any holding that the First Amendment requires that judicial campaigns be treated the same way as campaigns for other political offices. Nonetheless, the decision seems to subject other regulation of judicial campaigns, such as campaign finance restrictions, to the same scrutiny of those in nonjudicial contests. The ABA and the states began rewriting codes of judicial campaign conduct in light of the decision while efforts in many states to revisit methods of judicial selection have gathered steam.

Bibliography

  • American Bar Association, Report of the Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary, Justice in Jeopardy (2003).
  • Charles H. Sheldon and Linda S. Maule, Choosing Justice: The Recruitment of State and Federal Judges (1997).
  • Ronald D. Rotunda, Judicial Elections, Campaign Financing, and Free Speech, Election Law Journal 2 (2003): 79–90

— Michael E. Solimine

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Wikipedia: Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
Top
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 26, 2002
Decided June 27, 2002
Full case name Republican Party of Minnesota, et al., Petitioners v. Suzanne White, Chairperson, Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, et al.
Citations 536 U.S. 765 (more)
122 S. Ct. 2528; 153 L. Ed. 2d 694; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4883; 70 U.S.L.W. 4720; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 518
Prior history Judgement for defendants, 63 F.Supp.2d 967 (Minn. 1999); affirmed, 247 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2001); cert. granted, 534 U.S. 1054 (2001)
Holding
"Announce clauses" of judicial ethics codes that prevent judicial candidates from announcing their views on how cases should be decided are unconstitutional.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence O'Connor
Concurrence Kennedy
Dissent Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct 5(A)(3)(d)(i)

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office. In a 5–4 opinion, the court ruled that Minnesota's requirement of judges not to discuss political issues was unconstitutional.

Contents

Background

Minnesota, like most states, had a code of judicial ethics[1] that constrained candidates seeking election as a judge from discussing issues that could come before them if elected—referred to as an "announce clause."

In 1996, Gregory Wersal ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. He distributed literature critical of several Minnesota Supreme Court decisions. An ethics complaint was filed against him; however, the board which was to review the complaint dismissed the charges and cast doubt upon the constitutionality of the announce clause.

In 1998, Wersal ran again for the same office; however, this time he preemptively filed suit in Federal District Court against Suzanne White, the chairperson of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards, charging that the announce clause limited his right to free speech and made a mockery of the election process by denying him the ability to wage a meaningful campaign. The Republican Party of Minnesota joined in the lawsuit, arguing that the restrictions prevented the Party from learning Wersal's views on the issues, and thus opposing or supporting his candidacy.

The district court found that the announce clause did not violate the Constitution, Wersal appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and they affirmed the district court's decision.

Wersal filed a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was granted.

The decision

In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit Court's ruling and declared Minnesota's announce clause in violation of the First Amendment. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, found that the standard of there being a compelling state interest, and any restraints being narrowly tailored in order to restrict speech, was not met.

Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas were in the majority. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Breyer joined.

In a talk at the New York University School of Law on October 11, 2006, retired Justice O'Connor indicated that she regretted her vote. Justice O'Connor suggested she wished she had voted with the minority given the decision's implications for judicial independence.[citation needed]

See also

References

  1. ^ See generally, ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2004);[1] Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (2006).[2] See also, in specific, ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (1972), Canon 7(B); Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (2000) Canon 5(A)(3)(d)(i).

External links


 
 

 

Copyrights:

US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Republican Party of Minnesota v. White" Read more