PRESS
RELEASE
Wednesday,
August 3, 2005
Contact:
James
Bopp,
Jr.,
General
Counsel
Phone
812/232-2434;
Fax
812/235-3685
madisoncenter@aol.com
En
Banc
Eighth
Circuit
Strikes
Down
Minnesota
Judicial
Candidate
Rules
Against
Partisan
Political
Activities
and
Fund
Solicitation
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting as a full 13-judge court, held late yesterday that Minnesota's judicial canons which prohibits judicial candidates from involvement in partisan political activities or themselves soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The rules struck down stated that judicial candidates could not "identify themselves as members of political a organization," "attend political gatherings," " seek, accept or use endorsements from a political organization," or "personally solicit or accept campaign contributions." Similar or identical rules are common in many states with judicial elections.
The decision is the latest in a case first brought in 1999 against several provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct by a Gregory Wersal, a Minnesota judicial candidate, the Republican Party of Minnesota, and others. After the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a Minnesota rule forbidding judicial candidates from "announc[ing] their views on disputed legal or political issues" in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), the case was remanded to Eighth Circuit. The full Eighth Circuit ruled yesterday on Minnesota's partisan-activities and solicitation prohibitions in light of the Supreme Court decision in White.
"This is a major victory, and it marks a clean sweep for free political speech," said James Bopp, Jr., President of the Madison Center for Free Speech, which has represented the Republican Party of Minnesota throughout the appeals in White. "The court affirmed that voters have a right to know who they are voting for in a judicial election, and candidates have a right to let them know who they are. The no-partisan-activities rule for judicial candidates just forced candidates into political closets and voters' heads in the political sand."
Bopp also noted that the rule forbidding judicial candidates to solicit contributions for their own elections, thus requiring others to raise money for their campaigns, made little sense. "The rule not only muzzled candidates from speaking on their own behalf, it made them more beholden to those willing to raise money for them," said Bopp. "This isn't exactly the way to support judicial independence, which is supposed to be the reason for this sort of rule."
The decision is Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, No. 99-4021 (8th Cir., Aug. 2, 2005). It is available on the internet at: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/tmp/994021.html