Judicial Campaign Speech Restrictions in Light of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
Schuetz, Julie Schuering
MetadataShow full item record
In the United States Supreme Court decision Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, a five-to-four majority struck down a judicial campaign speech restriction designed to uphold the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and left remaining restrictions in serious doubt. This comment examines judicial campaign speech restrictions and suggests, in light of White, alternatives for states with elected judiciaries that wish to maintain the impartiality and integrity of their judiciaries. After exploring the tension between a state's compelling interest in maintaining an impartial judiciary and a judicial candidate's First Amendment rights, one possible alternative for dealing with judicial campaign speech that presents itself is the unofficial campaign conduct committee. Through private group action, neither the integrity of the judiciary nor a candidate's right to free speech will be compromised.