WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court says it will hear argument on a key aspect of free speech -- whether a state such as Minnesota can prohibit judicial candidates from speaking out "on disputed legal or political issues."
The justices indicated Monday they will hear the case later this term.
The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct bans such speech by candidates for elective judicial office. Canon 5 of the code forbids judicial candidates from attending and speaking at partisan political gatherings; identifying their membership in a political party; seeking, accepting or using a political party endorsement; announcing their views "on disputed legal or political issues;" personally soliciting campaign contributions; and, authorizing or permitting anyone to do those things on the candidates' behalf.
Gregory Wersal, a Minneapolis-area attorney and longtime member of the state Republican Party, ran unsuccessfully for the office of associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1996 and 1998.
Because new revisions of the code in 1996 created apparently contradictory canons, Wersal, his wife and members of his campaign committee spoke at Republican Party meetings as part of his 1996 campaign, identifying the candidate as a member of the GOP and saying he favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
They also distributed campaign literature criticizing several state Supreme Court decisions on abortion, crime and welfare, saying they disregarded the state Legislature and "common sense."
Wersal's campaign also unsuccessfully tried to get an endorsement from the Republican Party.
In May 1996, a delegate to the Republican district convention filed an ethics complaint against Wersal with the state Lawyers Board, but the complaint was dismissed.
After the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards revised the canons to end the apparent contradiction, and the Lawyers Board told him it would enforce Canon 5, Wersal, several other candidates and the Republican Party of Minnesota filed suit in federal court against the restrictions.
A federal judge upheld the restrictions, saying they served to keep the state judiciary impartial. When a federal appeals court affirmed the judge, Wersal and the party asked the Supreme Court of the United States for review.
Though not yet scheduled, the case should be heard sometime in March or April.
(No. 01-521, Republic Party of Minn. et al vs. Kelly et al)
