Republican Party of Minnesota
v. White
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.
Status:
This
case has reached final disposition in the U.S. Supreme Court
on the "announce clause" claims; however, litigation
continues on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on the issues of
fundraising and partisan political activity of judicial candidates.
More
on the White Decision
top
Weaver v. Bonner
This
decision by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
struck down several provisions in
Georgia
’s
Canons of Judicial Conduct. The
Eleventh Circuit interpreted White as freeing judicial
candidates to personally solicit campaign contributions, often from
lawyers who are likely to appear before them in court.
Status:
Rehearing
denied
More
on the Weaver Decision
top
Spargo v.
New York
This
decision by the US District Court for the Northern District of New
York struck down several sections of the New York Code of Judicial
Conduct. The court held,
relying on White, that certain sections of the code
unconstitutionally restricted the First Amendment rights of judges
and judicial candidates, and was unconstitutionally vague.
This decision is important because it calls into question the
ability of
New
York
to enforce the code for a broad range of judicial misconduct.
Status: Decision
from the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
More
on the Spargo Decision
top
Raab v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct
This decision, issued along with Watson (see below) by
the New York State Court of Appeals, upheld the constitutionality of
the same provisions invalidated by the
Federal
District Court
in Spargo, and
distinguished these provisions from the unconstitutional provision
at issue in White. The
Court of Appeals held that judicial elections are different from
other elections, accordingly the First Amendment rights of the
candidates and the voters must be balanced against the Due Process
rights of litigants to an impartial, independent judiciary.
These cases are important for distinguishing the
New York
provisions from White, as well as for contesting the basis
for federal jurisdiction in Spargo, which is scheduled to
come before the
U.S.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Status: Decision
from the New York State Supreme Court
More
on the Raab Decision
top
Watson v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct
This decision, issued along with Raab (see above) by
the New York State Court of Appeals, upheld the constitutionality of
the same provisions invalidated by the
Federal
District Court
in Spargo, and
distinguished these provisions from the unconstitutional provision
at issue in White. The
Court of Appeals held that judicial elections are different from
other elections, accordingly the First Amendment rights of the
candidates and the voters must be balanced against the Due Process
rights of litigants to an impartial, independent judiciary.
These cases are important for distinguishing the
New York
provisions from White, as well as for contesting the basis
for federal jurisdiction in Spargo, which is scheduled to
come before the
U.S.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Status:
Decision from the New York State Supreme Court
More
on the Watson Decision
top
Questions
or Comments - email
jccc@ncsc.dni.us
|
