Facts of the Case
Minnesota's Constitution provides for the selection of all state judges by popular election. The announcement clause of the Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibits a candidate from announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues. While running for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Gregory Wersal filed suit, seeking a declaration that the announce clause violates the First Amendment and an injunction against its enforcement. Wersal alleged that he was forced to refrain from announcing his views on disputed issues during the 1998 campaign, to the point where he declined response to questions put to him by the press and public, out of concern that he might run afoul of the announce clause. The District Court found that the announcement clause did not violate the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Questions
Does the First Amendment permit the Minnesota Supreme Court to prohibit candidates for judicial election in that State from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues?
Conclusions
-
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the announce clause violates the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the announce clause prohibits speech based on its content and burdens a category of speech that is at the core of First Amendment freedoms - speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office. Moreover, the Court concluded that the clause did not serve to preserve the state judiciary's impartiality, its argued compelling state interest. "There is an obvious tension between the article of Minnesota's popularly approved Constitution which provides that judges shall be elected, and the Minnesota Supreme Court's announce clause which places most subjects of interest to the voters off limits," wrote Justice Scalia.
Judicial Elections and Speech Restrictions - Podcast
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
To listen, please right click on the audio file you wish to hear and then...
A Survey of Empirical Evidence Concerning Judicial Elections
State Courts White Paper
The election of state judges is a controversial topic. Consider, for example, this quote from...
A Survey of Empirical Evidence Concerning Judicial Elections
State Courts White Paper
The election of state judges is a controversial topic. Consider, for example, this quote from...
Barwatch Bulletin -- February 16, 2009
February 16, 2009
House of Delegates Considers RecommendationsThe ABA's House of Delegates met today to vote on recommendations...
The Supreme Court Limits State Censorship of Judicial Campaign Speech
The election of state judges has been controversial at least since the Progressive Era. For...
