The Court majority makes a great effort to point out that it is not in 
this case invalidating laws that prevent candidates for judicial 
election from making explicit campaign promises. But the logic of the 
opinion strongly suggests that such laws would be unconstitutional. In 
striking down Minnesota's rule preventing a candidate from announcing 
views on a political or legal subject that might come before the 
candidate if elected judge, the Court applied strict scrutiny.  With 
this holding in place, it appears that a law or rule preventing a 
judicial candidate from making promises would not be narrowly tailored. 
Why prevent a candidate from saying "I promise to vote to overturn any 
law imposing a campaign contribution limit" when the candidate already 
has the right to say "laws preventing individuals from making campaign 
contributions are wrong"? 

The Justices all seem to agree on one thing: judicial elections are a 
bad idea. Perhaps the Justice's decision will expose the problems with 
judicial elections and cause them to be phased out by states.

Rick Hasen