Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
536 U.S. 765 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues is a content-based speech restriction that violates the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Facts:
- Since 1858, Minnesota's Constitution has provided for the selection of all state judges by popular, nonpartisan election.
- A Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct provision, known as the 'announce clause,' stated that a candidate for judicial office shall not 'announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues.'
- In 1996, Gregory Wersal, a candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court, distributed campaign literature criticizing several past decisions of that court on issues like crime, welfare, and abortion.
- A complaint was filed against Wersal with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, alleging his campaign literature violated the announce clause.
- Fearing that the complaint and potential future complaints would jeopardize his ability to practice law, Wersal withdrew from the 1996 election.
- In 1998, Wersal ran for the same office again but sought an advisory opinion on the enforceability of the announce clause, receiving an equivocal response.
- During his 1998 campaign, Wersal refrained from announcing his views on disputed issues, declining to respond to questions from the press and public out of concern he would violate the announce clause.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Wersal, the Republican Party of Minnesota, and others sued state officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeking a declaration that the 'announce clause' violates the First Amendment.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the state officials, upholding the constitutionality of the announce clause.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, finding the clause was constitutional.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's 'announce clause,' which prohibits candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues, violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. The Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment. The announce clause is a content-based prohibition on speech that is subject to strict scrutiny. Minnesota asserted compelling interests in preserving the impartiality and the appearance of impartiality of its judiciary. However, the clause is not narrowly tailored to serve these interests. It is 'woefully underinclusive' because it prohibits speech only during a campaign, while judges are free to express their views at any other time in articles, speeches, or classes. Furthermore, the state's definition of 'impartiality' as 'openmindedness' or lack of preconceptions is not a compelling interest, as it is neither possible nor desirable for judges to have no views on the law. If a state chooses to select its judges through popular elections, it cannot then silence the candidates on the very subjects of interest to the voters.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes. While joining the Court's opinion, this concurrence expresses concern that the very practice of electing judges undermines the state's asserted interest in judicial impartiality. Contested judicial elections involve fundraising and campaigning, which can create an appearance of impropriety or bias, as judges may feel pressure to rule in ways that please donors or the electorate to secure reelection. Minnesota has voluntarily taken on these risks to judicial impartiality by choosing popular elections. Therefore, the state's claim that it must significantly restrict speech to protect an interest that its own electoral system compromises is particularly troubling.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The announce clause is a content-based speech restriction that should be invalidated without applying the strict scrutiny test, as such restrictions on political speech are fundamentally beyond the power of the government to impose. The political speech of candidates is at the core of the First Amendment. While judicial integrity is a state interest of the highest order, the state may not achieve it by censoring what the people hear as they decide which candidate is most qualified. If a state chooses to have an elected judiciary, it cannot then argue that its democracy compels the abridgment of speech.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The Court's holding is unsound because it obscures the fundamental distinction between campaigns for the judiciary and for the political branches. Judges have a duty to be impartial and indifferent to unpopularity, which is a role fundamentally different from that of legislators and executives. Statements by a judicial candidate announcing their views on specific issues to enhance their popularity demonstrate a lack of fitness for office. Minnesota has a compelling interest in sanctioning such statements because they convey that the candidate's mind is not open on a particular issue and create the false impression that political campaign standards apply to judicial elections.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
No. The Court's 'an election is an election' approach is flawed; states should be permitted to differentiate between elections for political office and those for judicial office. Judges serve the law, not a constituency, and the state has a compelling interest in preserving judicial integrity and impartiality. The announce clause is a precisely targeted restriction that, when read with the unchallenged 'pledges or promises' clause, prevents candidates from committing to decide issues in a particular way. Without the announce clause, the ban on pledges is easily circumvented by semantic games, undermining the due process rights of litigants and public confidence in the judiciary. Minnesota's choice to elect judges does not require it to abandon measures designed to safeguard the unique character of the judicial office.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacted the landscape of judicial elections by applying core First Amendment political speech protections to judicial candidates. It established that if a state utilizes an electoral system for judges, it cannot then suppress candidate speech on the basis of content under the guise of protecting impartiality. The ruling has led to more issue-oriented judicial campaigns, where candidates are freer to discuss their judicial philosophies and views on legal topics, arguably making elections more informative for voters but also potentially more politicized. The case highlights the inherent tension between the democratic principles of elections and the traditional ideal of a detached, impartial judiciary, leaving states to grapple with how to maintain public confidence in elected judges who campaign on their views.
Unlock the full brief for Republican Party of Minnesota v. White