Judge candidate restrictions struck down

WASHINGTON, June 27 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court of the United States struck down Minnesota's restrictions on the speech of judicial candidates in a 5-4 vote Thursday.

The majority said the state's canon of conduct that prohibited a "candidate for judicial office" from announcing "his or her views on disputed legal or political issues" violated the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment.

Though Thursday's ruling affects Minnesota directly, it will also affect varying degrees of restrictions in 37 other states.

The case was closely watched by lawyers and judges across the country, especially by those organizations, such as the American Bar Association, that oppose judicial elections.

The case was also seen as a test between those judicial candidates who oppose abortion -- and in the main were in favor of announcing that opposition -- and those who supported the right to an abortion.

The narrow decision split Thursday along the Supreme Court's ideological fault line.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court's conservative majority, said Minnesota's judicial elections have been non-partisan since 1912, and the speech restrictions have been in place since 1974.

Scalia said Minnesota's arguments in favor of its restrictions were not convincing. "Moreover," he added, "the notion that the special context of electioneering justifies an abridgement of the right to speak out on disputed issues sets our First Amendment jurisprudence on its head."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among the dissenters.

She said the court majority ignores "the essential differences separating judicial office from political seats."

Further, "I do not agree with the (majority's) 'an election is an election is an election," Ginsburg said. "I would sharply differentiate elections for political office, in which the First Amendment holds full sway, from elections designed to select those whose office it is to administer justice without respect to persons."

The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct bans controversial 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.

The Supreme Court struck down the "announcing" provision Thursday.

In the case that brought the decision, Gregoray 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 Republic 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.

The Supreme Court heard argument in March. Thursday, it reversed the lower court and sent the case back down for a rehearing and new ruling based on the high-court's majority opinion.

(No. 01-521, Republic Party of Minn. et al vs. Kelly et al)