http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311305.pdf
The opinion, which is available at the above URL, affirms the dismissal of the case as moot.
The case arose from the Christian Coalition of Alabama's questionnaire to judicial candidates. The Alabama judicial conduct commission issued an advisory opinion that candidates would violate certain Alabama rules of conduct if they answered some of the questions. CCA sued, and the case bounced around between the district and circuit courts for a couple of years over questions like abstention and certifying questions to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Then, in June 2002, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White came down from the Supreme Court, holding that judicial candidates had a First Amendment right to announce their views on disputed political issues. The judicial conduct commission then withdrew its advisory opinion, and the Alabama Supreme Court began a process of revising the state's judicial conduct code. The commission members told the court that they “will not file charges against any judge in connection with the CCA questionnaire,” and on that basis the case was dismissed as moot.
For federal jurisdiction buffs: the Eleventh Circuit rejected both the voluntary-cessation and the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exceptions to the mootness doctrine. The judicial conduct commission seemed to be responding in good faith to a change in the law that drew into question the correctness of its advisory opinion. Thus, there was no reason to suspect that it would resume the offending conduct once the case was dismissed.
J. J. Gass
Associate Counsel, Democracy Program
212-998-6281
jj.gass@nyu.edu
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor
fax 212-995-4550
www.brennancenter.org