Robert Winter, Jr. v. Steven Wolnitzek
41 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1088, 2016 FED App. 0206P, 834 F.3d 681 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State regulations of judicial campaign speech are subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of preserving public confidence in judicial integrity. While states cannot prohibit candidates from identifying their political affiliations or expressing their views, they may constitutionally prohibit conduct such as making financial contributions to, or endorsing, other political candidates to maintain judicial impartiality.
Facts:
- Robert Winter, a candidate for judicial office, distributed campaign literature that identified him as a “lifelong Republican” and his opponents as registered Democrats.
- The Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission informed Winter that his mailers may have violated the canon prohibiting “campaign[ing] as a member of a political organization.”
- Allison Jones, an incumbent judge who was first appointed, asked voters in her campaign to “re-elect” her.
- Jones also promised in her campaign to “work with the legislative and executive branches to ensure that the law provides stiff penalties for heroin dealers.”
- The Commission informed Jones that her “re-elect” statement might be a prohibited “false and misleading statement” and her “stiff penalties” comment might be an impermissible “commitment” on an issue likely to come before her court.
- Cameron Blau, an aspiring judge, wished to give speeches for the Republican Party, hold Republican fundraisers, seek and receive endorsements from Republican candidates, and donate to the party and its candidates, all of which were restricted by Kentucky's Code of Judicial Conduct.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission sent 'probable cause' letters to Robert Winter and Allison Jones, initiating proceedings for potential violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Winter filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against members of the Commission, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the canons.
- Jones and Cameron Blau intervened in the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court certified questions about the meaning of three canons to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which issued an opinion interpreting them.
- The district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion, striking down some of the challenged canons while upholding others.
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do several clauses of Kentucky's Code of Judicial Conduct, which restrict judicial candidates' speech and political activities during campaigns, violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Sutton, Circuit Judge
Yes, in part, and no, in part. Some clauses of Kentucky's Code of Judicial Conduct violate the First Amendment, while others are constitutionally permissible regulations of judicial campaign speech. The court analyzed each challenged clause under strict scrutiny. The 'campaigning' and 'speeches' clauses were struck down as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they chilled permissible speech about a candidate's own affiliations and views. The 'misleading statements' clause was also struck down for being overbroad, as it could punish statements that are not knowingly or recklessly false. However, the court upheld the 'contributions,' 'endorsements,' and 'acting as a leader' clauses, finding them narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest in preventing judicial candidates from becoming entangled in partisan quid pro quo politics and preserving the appearance of impartiality. The 'false statements' clause was upheld on its face as a permissible ban on knowing, material falsehoods, but found unconstitutional as-applied to a candidate's use of the ambiguous term 're-elect'. Finally, the court vacated and remanded the 'commits' clause, finding it potentially vague and directing the lower court to allow Kentucky an opportunity to provide a narrowing construction focused on impartiality towards parties, not issues.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of strict scrutiny to judicial campaign speech, clarifying the line between permissible and impermissible regulations post-White. It establishes a key distinction: states may regulate a judicial candidate's direct participation in external partisan politics (e.g., contributing to or endorsing other candidates) to protect judicial integrity. However, states cannot unduly restrict speech related to the candidate's own campaign, such as identifying party affiliation or discussing political and legal views. This ruling provides a constitutional roadmap for states with elected judiciaries, forcing them to narrowly tailor any speech restrictions to avoid chilling the robust debate necessary for a meaningful election.
