In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional for Florida to bar a candidate for a judge seat from sending out a mailing soliciting contributions and from asking for donations on her website. The candidate claimed the restriction violated her free speech rights. “The State may conclude that judges, charged with exercising strict neutrality and independence, cannot supplicate campaign donors without diminishing public confidence in judicial integrity,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. (Vox, April 29, 2015, by Andrew Prokop)
In his dissent, Judge Antonin Scalia said that the restrictions favored incumbents, the wealthy and the well connected and sacrificed free speech for suspect judicial impartiality. (Forbes, April 29, 2015, by Daniel Fisher)
Questions about the future include whether the decisions will be limited to judicial elections and if will states be allowed to regulate money spent by powerful PACs in these elections. Will there be any restrictions on judge candidates comments in state elections? (SCOTUSblog, April 29, 2015, by Ronald Collins)
Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Robert D. Durham argued that rules on transparency and recusal would make it unnecessary to restrict campaign solicitatins by judge candidates. “The majority’s hasty answer overlooked the ability of state rule drafters to develop stringent and effective recusal procedures that would protect the public and the courts without offending the right of judicial candidates to speak to their supporters without legal restrictions on the substance of their political speech,” wrote Durham. (SCOTUSblog, May 4, 2015, by Robert D. Durham)
Free speech scholar Josh Wheeler said that the ruling would have little immediate impact, but he was less sanguine about the long term impact. “…the analysis employed by the majority (and plurality) raises more questions than it answers and has the potential to severely restrict not only the speech rights of judges in contexts other than the solicitation of campaign funds, but also the First Amendment rights of all Americans,” he wrote. (SCOTUSblog, May 4, 2015, by Josh Wheeler)