See this
A.P. report, which explains that New York's highest court has upheld
its rules for regulating judicial conduct against a challenge that the rules
ran afoul of the Supreme Court's opinion in Republican Party of Minnesota
v. White. The New York opinions are available here
and here
(links via How Appealing).
At first glance, it is hard to see how White is distinguishable, taking
into account White's central point that once you allow judges to run
for office, you must allow them to campaign as other elected officials.
Here are some of the New York provisions challenged in the first case:
"A judge or candidate for
elective judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity"
(22 NYCRR 100.5)..."Neither a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election
to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity
except (i) as otherwise authorized by this section or by law, (ii) to vote
and to identify himself or herself as a member of a political party, and
(iii) on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system or the administration
of justice. Prohibited political activity shall include: *** (c) engaging
in any partisan political activity, provided that nothing in this section
shall prohibit a judge or candidate from participating in his or her own
campaign for elective judicial office or shall restrict a non-judge holder
of public office in the exercise of the functions of that office; (d) participating
in any political campaign for any office or permitting his or her name to
be used in connection with any activity of a political organization; (e)
publicly endorsing or publicly opposing (other than by running against) another
candidate for public office; (f) making speeches on behalf of a political
organization or another candidate; (g) attending political gatherings; (h)
soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to
a political organization or candidate" (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][c], [d], [e],
[f], [g], [h]).
The court distinguished White, holding that "the rules are constitutionally
permissible because they are narrowly tailored to further a number of compelling
State interests, including preserving the impartiality and independence of
our State judiciary and maintaining public confidence in New York State's
court system."
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com