Supreme Court To Review Bans On Solicitations In Judge Races
From the New York Times
Almost five years to the day after the Citizens United decision reshaped American politics, the Supreme Court on Tuesday will turn its attention to judicial elections.
Such contests already sometimes resemble regular political campaigns, awash in money and negative advertising. And judges already routinely hear cases involving lawyers and litigants who have contributed to their campaigns.
But 30 of the 39 states with judicial elections have tried to draw the line by forbidding judicial candidates to personally ask for money, saying that such solicitations threaten the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial system.
Tuesday’s case is a First Amendment challenge to the solicitation bans, which have been struck down by four federal appeals courts. But most of the American legal establishment supports them. The American Bar Association and a group representing the chief justices of every state have filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold the bans.
Opinions seem more divided among incumbent judges on lower courts and candidates seeking to challenge them. They say direct requests are more efficient than ones made through campaign committees and are no more apt to lead to corruption.
Marcus Carey, who twice lost judicial elections in Kentucky, said there was no point to requiring that contribution requests be made through intermediaries.
“You create this farce,” he said. “I have to tell them who to call.”
At the same time, he said, everything else about judicial elections resembles an ordinary political campaign.
“There are fund-raising events,” said Mr. Carey, who successfully challenged Kentucky’s ban. “There are cocktail parties. There are shrimp and grits. And the candidate is there. It’s a game.”
Read more in our daily News Update...
From the New York Times
Almost five years to the day after the Citizens United decision reshaped American politics, the Supreme Court on Tuesday will turn its attention to judicial elections.
Such contests already sometimes resemble regular political campaigns, awash in money and negative advertising. And judges already routinely hear cases involving lawyers and litigants who have contributed to their campaigns.
But 30 of the 39 states with judicial elections have tried to draw the line by forbidding judicial candidates to personally ask for money, saying that such solicitations threaten the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial system.
Tuesday’s case is a First Amendment challenge to the solicitation bans, which have been struck down by four federal appeals courts. But most of the American legal establishment supports them. The American Bar Association and a group representing the chief justices of every state have filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold the bans.
Opinions seem more divided among incumbent judges on lower courts and candidates seeking to challenge them. They say direct requests are more efficient than ones made through campaign committees and are no more apt to lead to corruption.
Marcus Carey, who twice lost judicial elections in Kentucky, said there was no point to requiring that contribution requests be made through intermediaries.
“You create this farce,” he said. “I have to tell them who to call.”
At the same time, he said, everything else about judicial elections resembles an ordinary political campaign.
“There are fund-raising events,” said Mr. Carey, who successfully challenged Kentucky’s ban. “There are cocktail parties. There are shrimp and grits. And the candidate is there. It’s a game.”
Read more in our daily News Update...